Gorgon

I guess the question is whether they would have gotten what they wanted as a dispossessed people if somehow they had been able to refrain from terror.

Aren't you confusing the Palestinian people with Hamas. Hamas draws strength from repeated violations against civilians, ensuring that however many are killed in these incursions, there will be 10 more to take their place. Hamas cannot be eliminated with bullets anymore than can Al Kaida (will I ever remember how to spell that) You need to undermine their support, or offer a way for them to change their direction that is not a tacit admission to terrorism. See Shin Fein.

'Politically correct group think'. Do you really think I care whether my opinion agrees with some imaginary liberal agenda. It's got nothing to do with refusing to face reality, if anything being forced to take sides makes people less able to find solutions. You gain no special insight from living under threat, but it's a good way to become part of the problem, if you are not careful.

hehe, about the only thing safe right now. heck, isn't the OLF team planning to double the defense budget? not sure where i heard that. i'm eternally tied to government work even though i would prefer otherwise. taks Closet commie

It's also not up to Ireal to make Palestinian's lives better You do realize that most of the Palestinian controlled areas are under embargo, who would want to invest in an area like that. The Palestinians scrape by any way they can or live on handouts, from Hamas or wherever they can. There is no making their lives better without a lasting peace. The Palestinians want statehood as well as the land returned that Israel hogged with their settlement programmes before they will consider a peace. Those are reasonable demands, but why would Israel help build up a threat, easier just to live next to a giant refugee camp.

If Israel is going to kill Hamas members one at a time they won't be able to keep up with the birthrate.

Yes, they're not infinite, and their behavior has been modified in the past. Qualify that statement please. Anyway I'm sure there is something in between nothing, and recurring loss of civilian life as a result of the assassination policy, and the 'punitive' incursions, which are all part of the problem not the solution.

To you usually gauge your actions according to what they accomplish, or are you happy to do whatever, just so you can say you did something. Do you really think Hamas is in any danger of running out of militant leaders...

An apartment in a building has been verified as the location of a senior Hamas leader, IDF takes down the whole building, a Hamas official is traveling by car in the middle of a busy Gaza street, IDF shoots a hellfire missle, killing the people in the car, and whoever happens to be next to them. Honestly what does it matter to the families of the innocent victims that the people who had to make the decision didn't want collateral damage. You have to ask yourself if it's worth it, if all it accomplishes is to maintain the status quo.

I'm sure there were plenty of Irish who didn't think the IRA terrorist, even as they were bombing London, but it's pretty simple, killing civilians specifically in the name of politics, religion, whatever, to create a media event supposedly capable of creating a desired response, that's what terrorism is. In any case I can see I have succeeded in backing you into the unlikely position of defending Hamas' raison d'etre. My work here is done. *Evil laugh*

Hamas is a little bit of everything. The provide health care, they have a news station, they are a political party. Point is what they are remembered for is being a terrorist organization. Suicide bombs are outside the framework of democratic society. Following their election the US and EU cut off aid to Gaza so as not to directly fund their operations.

Both sides kill civilians on a regular basis, whether intentionally or incidentally, without very much to show for it. Yes, a democracy is supposed to weigh human life higher than Israel has come to do. Can you say the same of a terrorist organization. It comes no doubt from decades of low intensity conflict, it desensitizes people.

One could reasonably assume a democratic state to be held to a greater standard than a terrorist organization.

Wait wait waaaaait. There is no correlation between 9-11 and Iraq.

Jason Strackham drives really fast #14

There could be worse dominant superpowers to be had, no doubt, but you have to understand that that position automatically attracts criticism. As well it should.

Aram, suggesting a hippie song. Say it ain't so.

West. West Germany.

I think we are getting ahead of ourselves here. Japan and East Germany turned into economic powerhouses after the war, but I don't think that can be attributed to military intervention. Also, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, yeah, what a true gift from a self sacrificing nation.

lol

Is today the 30th or the 31st. I may have lost a day, these things happen. Sorry I have no suggestions.

Depends on what you mean by 'going out of our way'. Quite often military decisions carry an estimated civilian casualty figure, when it is possible to avoid civilian deaths, the US army does 'go out of its way' to avoid it, when it isn't possible they go do it anyway. Cost of doing business.

I take you're volunteering to go into taliban held territory/the slums of Cairo/the plantations of Morocco and gather forensic evidence then? Oh, and don't forget to gather witnesses! Don't get me wrong, I fully support habeus corpus in civil and criminal courts. But this is hardly normal. Thinking point: we accept the military's ability to judge who is a terrorist when they open fire on people in the field. The fact that they shot back at an invading army doesn't necessarily indicate future intent of blowing things up. War is one thing, necessity dictates there can be no civil proceedings, but who decides when the war is over. These may indeed be dangerous people, but the principle of the thing is clear enough.

While all of this is happening, both sides are working on a nuclear bomb. Germany had to scale down their attempt and could never muster anything close to the Manhattan project. There's another 'what if' for you. What if Germany had been able to allocate those resources.

Who, knows, it's just a saying. Maybe Barbarossa alone would have broken the Reich.