Subject:
|
Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Mar 2004 00:36:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
551 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> Just because the man should be dead or the world is better off with him dead
> doesn't mean Isreal was justified in killing him. In fact I would postulate
> that this will lead to much more killing that it will prevent. This is why a
> open policy of assassination meerly furthers the cycle of violence.
I agree with the above. However I think that it raises a number of questions.
Remember that I don't believe in the initiation of the use of force... but I
have questions nonetheless.
1) When exactly is a country in a "state of war" with an organization or entity?
It's clearly not legitimate to preemptively go after every organization or
entity that's inimical to you merely because they have different views, but if
an entity or organization declares that it wants your country completely
obliterated, has that organization "declared war" on you? Do they have to act
first? How much do they need to do? Can you be at war with an organization that
doesn't in and of itself control territory? If the answers to the above are yes,
what does that mean, exactly? (1)
2) What constitutes assassination versus carrying out the operations of war? In
a conventional war (against a country) is targeting the command and control
center of that country off limits because the leader might be there? If you hit
that center and the leader was killed, is that in and of itself assassination?
3) Is there ever a situation in which assassination is justified? If you're
already at war with a country, is it a military action to assassinate the leader
of that country? There were people during the run up to the recent Iraq war
calling for us to assassinate Saddam rather than start a big war. Were they
correct? If your answer is no, what if the only other alternative was the war?
I ask because I think these are hard questions worthy of thought, not because I
think these admit of easy or pat answers. The answers do have some bearing here,
no matter what you think of the relative legitimacy of the claims of Israel to
exist and so forth.
1 - I'm uncomfortable with the notion that we (the US in particular) are
fighting a "war on drugs". What does that mean? Who are we at war with? Did they
declare war on us? Ditto for the "war on terror"...
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
| (...) I'll try to answer the best I can, please let me know if anything does not satisfy you entirely; these are purely my *current* answers. (...) I am of the opinion one can not fight a war against a non-territorial entity, but I will admit this (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
| Don't make the mistake of assessing this event in isolation. The precedent has already been set; Israel has already apprehended a number of individuals (from Hamas members to Nazi war criminals) and put them on trial. Sharon did this because he does (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
| (...) Just because the man should be dead or the world is better off with him dead doesn't mean Isreal was justified in killing him. In fact I would postulate that this will lead to much more killing that it will prevent. This is why a open policy (...) (21 years ago, 23-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
