Is this the right way to deal with terrorism?

[greatcalgarian]

US is asking Israel to follow her way of dealing with terrorism, go in for the kill and ask question later, for example the Iraq war. Is this a good approach in resolving crisis, or is this simply American Cowboy way of doing thing?
Read BBC article for indepth view:

For many of those non-Hezbollah, anti-Syrian factions in the Lebanese government, the key failure in the current crisis has been Washington's: its inability to keep the Middle East road map alive, and to address the core Palestinian issue, its total alignment with Israel, and its apparent willingness to allow Lebanon to be devastated in a proxy war of regional ambitions.
President Bush has declared that the root of the problem is Hezbollah, and that there can be no settlement until that problem is addressed.
Throughout the region, Arab moderates and radicals, Sunnis and Shias, would take issue. For them, it goes without saying that the root of the problem is Israel's occupation of what was Palestine, and that there can be no peace until that problem is addressed, perhaps through a formula such as the land-for-peace offer endorsed by the Arab nations at their Beirut summit in March 2002.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5223210.stm

 

[almifkhar]

so if say the chinese came here to detroit and invaded, blew everything up and killed my fellow people with illegal weapons and i chose to fight back, would i be labbeled a terrorist?

 

[greatcalgarian]

so if say the chinese came here to detroit and invaded, blew everything up and killed my fellow people with illegal weapons and i chose to fight back, would i be labbeled a terrorist?

YES, according to GWB definition. Especially if you loaded yourself with explosive and sacrifice your life in order to take out the Chinese invaders. And definitely you will be labelled as one if you can fly a plane and crash into TianAnMeng.

 

[almifkhar]

just amazing how a single word can dehumanize a group of people isn't it.

 

[Snowbear]

What's really amazing is how people think that peace can be attained through war...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

US is asking Israel to follow her way of dealing with terrorism, go in for the kill and ask question later, for example the Iraq war. Is this a good approach in resolving crisis, or is this simply American Cowboy way of doing thing?
Read BBC article for indepth view:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5223210.stm

I dunno.

If someone has the resources and the will to destroy American interests at home or abroad with the weapons of war, they must be found and broken - either killed or demoralized so that they no longer have the will or resources to fight. Re-education, humanitarian aid, and economic sactions and benefits from the US can help curb the growth of terrorism as well.

It is very useful for the US to encourage Israel to fight Hizbullah. In many ways, Hizbullah serves as a test case for dealing with current and future terrorist groups. Hizbullah has been denounced by other Arab countries - a shock for the entire world. Most importantly, the US is not invovled in this campaign - telling the world that the US is not the only country engaged in this type of thing, and the US can observe diplomatic reactions from other countries and the UN to the activities of Israel and use Israel's actions as precedence for later conflicts.

I've heard talk of the US military observing the urban training done by Israel's military for use in Bagdad. The US can use Irael's experience in dealing with Islamic extremists in urban warfare, put it to use themselves, and pass the knowledge on to the Iraqi military and police.

 

[michel]

In many ways, Hizbullah serves as a test case for dealing with current and future terrorist groups. Hizbullah has been denounced by other Arab countries - a shock for the entire world. Most importantly, the US is not invovled in this campaign - telling the world that the US is not the only country engaged in this type of thing, and the US can observe diplomatic reactions from other countries and the UN to the activities of Israel and use Israel's actions as precedence for later conflicts.

Good point AE; I think you hit the nail on the head with this post. Hizbullah have been behaving like bullies for too long; they have been terrorising, and succeeding in doing so, apparently without any form of rebuke.

This is the first time that anyone (this time) Israel has said "We're not having any more of this", and the West has cautiously watched from the sidelines.

War is hell; there is no doubt about it. And there is no doubt that the Lebanon has lost many more civilians than Israel has; but, at last, someone has stood up and said "We're not standing for this any more".

 

[Booko]

Last time I checked one of the best ways to remove a cancerous growth is to cut it out. No doubt cancers would object to this approach. I cannot imagine a surgeon feeling remorse for the cancerous growth although they may feel bad that surrounding areas need to be eradicated too.

There are times when redemption seems so unlikely that the overriding concern must be the protection of the innocent.

I have striven over the past couple of weeks to try and see what redeeming value or possibility there is in Hezbollah, and I come up a blank. Yes, I know that they help those in need with food, clothing, education and medical care. But that does not seem to be their raison d'etre. That reason is violence and destruction, even though it costs the lives of those people they give their charity to.

If they are "freedom-fighters" I would be very interested in knowing exactly whose freedom they have been fighting for these past 6 years. I just can see it.

I think the priority should be the protection of the states and the peoples of Lebanon and Israel.

I don't see how this can be accomplished while Hezbollah remains a state within a state, and an armed one to boot.

If they will not lay down their arms, then they get what they get.

We are fools indeed if we let the wolves of the world continue to prey on the sheep.

I know that there is a political wing of Hezbollah.

Well, there was a political wing of the Nazis too, but that's illegal in Germany even now. And Hezbollah should be declared illegal in Lebanon also. The gov't of Lebanon cannot deal with this problem while the infection is present in their gov't.

 

[Booko]

I have thought from the start that the very best route would be for Lebanon to embrace the Israeli cause and to fight WITH them against Hezbollah. After the party was over, Israel simply goes home. No big deal. What else are friends for? I was more than a bit agast when I heard the Lebanese Defence Minister (I think) who said that "Lebanon my fight WITH Hezbolah to remove Israel from their country." Talk about a bird-brain, as thinking like this is what allowed Hezbollah to grow in the first place.

Yes, well the Defense Minister holds power because of his connections to the Syrians, so he will hardly be sensible about this would he?

Indeed Booko. I wonder how many of you would NOT put down a rabid dog raveging your neighbours child.

Hm...been there. Done that. The dog wasn't rabid, but he damn near killed the infant, who gave him no cause for the attack.

And we are also fools for apologizing for the source. {IE. THIS IS NOT ISLAM!!!!!!!} Like Communism, Islam looks ok on paper, the simple fact IS that it doens't really work when put into practise.

In the past, it has worked in practice. But just as other religions have gotten off track and ended up creating misery, it seems to be one of those times for Islam as well. I don't think there's anything wrong with the religion. The institutions are quite another matter.

There is far too much room for abuse. For those that say, "These are not good Muslims!", I would suggest you try telling them that. Without a doubt they probably feel they are VERY good Muslims and that the moderates are the ones who have it all wrong. I defy anyone to clearly show me which camp IS correct. The simple fact is that one can cherry pick the Qur'an any way one wants. If you want to fight you can point at supporting passages. If you want to believe in Peace, Love and Beards you can point to other passages. It really is an extremely poorly written document, meanwhile we are told how incredibly brilliant it is by others. Good grief, who is one to believe.

Read it for yourself and see if the actions of the fanatics measure up to what the text demands.

I have. They don't. Not even close.

 

[kreeden]

If someone has the resources and the will to destroy American interests at home or abroad with the weapons of war, they must be found and broken - either killed or demoralized so that they no longer have the will or resources to fight. .

That is the only part of your post that I question AE . The whole idea behind democracy is that people have different " interests ". What makes American interest more inportant then others ?

Now , reacting to an attack upon " home soil " , like the World Trade Center , is defense of your home soil . But attacks on " American interest " on other's home soil .... it would appear that there is likely a conflict of interest before that attack happened , wouldn't it ?


BTW as far as the poll goes , I can't reply because in my opinion , Israel's actions will only create more freedom fighters . And perhaps turn more of the world's opinion agaisnt her . It will change things , but I don't think for the better .

 

[Booko]

The whole idea behind democracy is that people have different " interests ". What makes American interest more inportant then others ?

Good question. I would also ask why our interests abroad might possibly trump the interests of the people who actually live there.

I'd suggest it's this very short-sighted nationalistic worldview that's gotten us into the sort of pickle we're in now.

The only thing that will get us out is to consider the benefit of *all humanity* first, and only then our "national interest."

Easier said than done, of course. It would take the nations of the world all agreeing to make national interest subservient, or things would get even more out of balance than they are now.

In time, perhaps "hegemony" and "superpower" will be considered as evil as terms like "genocide."

Now , reacting to an attack upon " home soil " , like the World Trade Center , is defense of your home soil . But attacks on " American interest " on other's home soil .... it would appear that there is likely a conflict of interest before that attack happened , wouldn't it ?

That would depend. An attack on an embassy is an attack on "home soil" and the embassy does not sit where it is as a matter of invasion or occupation.

But generally, I am dubious about the idea of equating "American interests" with "American self-defense."

Actually, I'm pretty dubious about "American interests," since so often it is seen to have little to do with the interests of Americans, as opposed to the powerful in this country.

Israel's actions will only create more freedom fighters . And perhaps turn more of the world's opinion agaisnt her . It will change things , but I don't think for the better .

If this is all that happens, I might agree.

I can't vote for the poll because it asks the wrong question in the first place. The question is much broader, because it will take more than one thing to wipe out the scourge of terrorism. I believe that force of arms is one of those tools, but that quite frankly is the easier part of it. There are the political and socioeconomic things that also need doing. We ignore them at our peril.

 

[kreeden]

Good question. I would also ask why our interests abroad might possibly trump the interests of the people who actually live there.

I'd suggest it's this very short-sighted nationalistic worldview that's gotten us into the sort of pickle we're in now.

I agree . But the choice appears to be Nationism vs Colonization { Globalization is little more then economical colonization } . So given the choice , I would choose Nationism .

The only thing that will get us out is to consider the benefit of *all humanity* first, and only then our "national interest."

I agree 100% . Only I don't agree with having U.S. { or any other } Foreign Policy tell me what is of my " best interest ". An group like the U.N. , perhaps ? At lest then one has input from more then one source . But even then , there would likely be problems .

In time, perhaps "hegemony" and "superpower" will be considered as evil as terms like "genocide."

Perhaps they already are ?

That would depend. An attack on an embassy is an attack on "home soil" and the embassy does not sit where it is as a matter of invasion or occupation.

True . But the " home soil ' was a gift , and the embaasy does set there as an invition . Both should be respected .

But generally, I am dubious about the idea of equating "American interests" with "American self-defense."

Actually, I'm pretty dubious about "American interests," since so often it is seen to have little to do with the interests of Americans, as opposed to the powerful in this country.

I agree that there is often a difference between the interest of a people and that of their government . When I refer to " American interest " , I refer to that shown by the American government .

If this is all that happens, I might agree.

I can't vote for the poll because it asks the wrong question in the first place. The question is much broader, because it will take more than one thing to wipe out the scourge of terrorism. I believe that force of arms is one of those tools, but that quite frankly is the easier part of it. There are the political and socioeconomic things that also need doing. We ignore them at our peril.

One could start by defining what " terrorism " is . Is it an act of war , or is it a crime ? If a crime , then perhaps an international police force would be better suited to deal with it ? If it is an act of war , then we have about as much hope of stopping it as we do war .

Neither way , we have to get off the high horse and start facing the fact that both sides " have God on their side ", or so they believe .

 

[Jon]

War is the final extension of diplomacy. It's sad but true.When you try to deal with any group that has as a goal, the destruction of the Jewish state, I believe there can be no peace. For decades diplomacy has miserably failed. If one is to "settle" the conflict, then one must remove the people that are set out to destroy Israel. Iran has shown itself to be of the Hitler's Holocaust fanclub.
Can we allow a people to be removed from the face of the earth?
Any diplomacy that dosen't remove Iran-Hizbullah's dream of killing all the Jews will be failed diplomacy.

I'm not for any war but there are times you have to deal with governments
that want to destroy a race or group of people, you are left with war as a
final means of diplomacy.

 

[Arrow]

According to Sun Tzu, the only real way to fully eliminate terrorists is to
1) befriend the people so that the people give the terrorists up to the government
or
2) Land burning policy of total destruction.

The second one seems kind of severe though...

 

[Booko]

War is the final extension of diplomacy. It's sad but true.When you try to deal with any group that has as a goal, the destruction of the Jewish state, I believe there can be no peace. For decades diplomacy has miserably failed. If one is to "settle" the conflict, then one must remove the people that are set out to destroy Israel. Iran has shown itself to be of the Hitler's Holocaust fanclub.

Can we allow a people to be removed from the face of the earth?
Any diplomacy that dosen't remove Iran-Hizbullah's dream of killing all the Jews will be failed diplomacy.

I'm not for any war but there are times you have to deal with governments that want to destroy a race or group of people, you are left with war as a final means of diplomacy.

Jon, I fear you are correct in this. I don't see Hezbollah as being terribly interested in peaceful coexistence on any level. As proof of that just look at what their leader has had to say in the past and is saying now. He may advocate violence, but I see no reason to think he is lying about his aims.

 

[kreeden]

War is the final extension of diplomacy.

I followed you up to that point ....

You appear to be grouping everyone in the area into two groups . Jewish , and those who want all jewish people dead ? That may be the case , but I do not think so .

If one is to "settle" the conflict, then one must remove the people that are set out to destroy Israel.

Of course , removing Israel would pretty much settle it too . Would it ?

Hate is hate , no matter who it is directed towards !

 

[Booko]

According to Sun Tzu, the only real way to fully eliminate terrorists is to
1) befriend the people so that the people give the terrorists up to the government
or

Always the smarter course. It's one of the reasons that, when I do question Israel's policies, it has more to do with harassing checkpoints and that sort of thing. It doesn't exactly endear you to the populace, and that has a heck of a backlash. There are problems enough without making more.

2) Land burning policy of total destruction.

The second one seems kind of severe though...

Especially for those who are unable to get out of the area.

I'm not sure what other viable option there is at the moment, unless the world community can come in and find another way out.

There's been a coalition suggested of Norwegians, Italians and French I think? Something like that would be possible, but there would have to be that buffer zone Israel is demanding so they aren't still under rocket fire. And Hezbollah would, in principle, have to agree that they would eventually give up their arms.

I'm not putting any money on that latter bit, but it's still worth asking.

 

[Jon]

I followed you up to that point ....

You appear to be grouping everyone in the area into two groups . Jewish , and those who want all jewish people dead ? That may be the case , but I do not think so .



Of course , removing Israel would pretty much settle it too . Would it ?

Hate is hate , no matter who it is directed towards !

I don't want anyone to die. WW2 is the reason Israel is there. Hittler did what the Iranian's want to do. Destroy Israel off the face of the earth. Since Hizbullah is Iranian
and gets it's weapons eventually from Iran. Then to me this is just 2 sides. Israel and
Hizbullah.

 

[c0da]

WW2 is the reason Israel is there

It was a factor, but not the definitive 'reason'. Zionism was around in the late 1800s.

 

[Booko]

It was a factor, but not the definitive 'reason'. Zionism was around in the late 1800s.

True. The Edict of Toleration was issued in 1844.

edit: Though it might be fair to say that WW2 provided the impetus that ended up founding the state of Israel. Without some sort of world recognition of the problem (and the Holocaust was rather hard to miss, despite our contemporary loonies who deny it), there probably wouldn't have been the push to create a homeland.