Subject:
|
Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:18:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
406 times
|
| |
|
|
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 not want peace on anything but his own terms.
Scott A
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Sheikh Yassin
|
| (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 24-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
|
|
|
|
