cease fire, how long will it last?

[dxoigmn]

They are being more proactive I would say. Like I said, I have not heard of Israel going in and killing the suicide bomber's family, I would expect them to try to stop Saddam's money from getting to the family though. That way it will take away incentive for other people to blow themselves up.

Okay, I understand now.  You have no evidence but because you think that Israel is proactive, then they must be.  Of course, my misunderstanding.

[quasi-modo]

They are being more proactive I would say. Like I said, I have not heard of Israel going in and killing the suicide bomber's family, I would expect them to try to stop Saddam's money from getting to the family though. That way it will take away incentive for other people to blow themselves up.

Okay, I understand now.  You have no evidence but because you think that Israel is proactive, then they must be.  Of course, my misunderstanding.

I have no evidence? I see this stuff on the news, but I guess I have to hold your hand and point it out to you.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/17/mideast.violence/index.html
They target the leader's of groups. That link I posted above was the first one that came up in a google search. I do not have time to post every article ever written about something like this.

[Hazard]

quasi don't you realize that evidence supporting your argument is inadmissable?

[dxoigmn]

I have no evidence? I see this stuff on the news, but I guess I have to hold your hand and point it out to you.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/17/mideast.violence/index.html
They target the leader's of groups. That link I posted above was the first one that came up in a google search. I do not have time to post every article ever written about something like this.

So "Targeted killing follows deadly suicide bombing in Erez" right beheath the title doesn't mean anything?  That whole article reeks of seeking revenge.

[quasi-modo]

I have no evidence? I see this stuff on the news, but I guess I have to hold your hand and point it out to you.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/17/mideast.violence/index.html
They target the leader's of groups. That link I posted above was the first one that came up in a google search. I do not have time to post every article ever written about something like this.

So "Targeted killing follows deadly suicide bombing in Erez" right beheath the title doesn't mean anything?  That whole article reeks of seeking revenge.

But do you see the fact that it is a Hamas leader?

[quasi-modo]

quasi don't you realize that evidence supporting your argument is inadmissable?

It is just the first thing that came up in google. I do not feel like sifting through stuff. There is tons of stuff all over the place that shows that Israel goes after the groups and terrorists themselves and not innocent people. It is just people like dxo need it pointed out to them because they evidently watch their news through a sort of right-wing/anti-israeli filter.

[Adron]

They're still doing it for revenge, not justice or prevention. Justice would mean capturing leaders and give them a fair trial. Prevention would mean working on it continously instead of doing a counter-attack whenever there has been a bombing.

[quasi-modo]

They're still doing it for revenge, not justice or prevention. Justice would mean capturing leaders and give them a fair trial. Prevention would mean working on it continously instead of doing a counter-attack whenever there has been a bombing.

It is prevention because it is taking out the leaders and terrorists before they can carry out attacks. Israel is working on it continuously. They have great intelligence they are constantly seaking these people out. Also the reason they are not getting a trial and terrorists are getting struck down is because this is a war... this is combat.

[Arta]

That's just beyond the pail.

1: This is not a war. War are armies fighting eachother. You yourself realise that half the combatants are terrorists. Hamas is not a military organisation. It is a terrorist group. Thus, this is not a war.

2: Killing terrorists just makes more terrorists. THIS IS TOTALLY, TOTALLY OBVIOUS. Thus, to defeat terrorism, we must address the causes of terrorism. There is no violent solution to this problem.

3: It is not prevention. See previous point.

I once read that the answer to all of humnanity's problems is to observe what is true, and do what works. Obviously, that's a fairly glib simplification, but the general principle is sound. Name a single example of a terrorist movement that has been overcome and eliminated by violent means. I dare you.

Given that:

Terrorists exist
Governments have universally failed to solve the problem militarily
Governments have sometimes succeeded in solving the problem diplomatically

It can be deduced that:

Military solutions don't work
Diplomatic solutions can work

It can be concluded that:

The strategy of Isreal, the US, and any other country that seeks a military solution to the problem of terrorism, is flawed.

QED

[Hazard]

That's just beyond the pail.

1: This is not a war. War are armies fighting eachother. You yourself realise that half the combatants are terrorists. Hamas is not a military organisation. It is a terrorist group. Thus, this is not a war.

-Vietnam was not a "war" as there was no actual declaration of war. Do you not consider Vietnam a war?

-Hamas characterizes themselves as soldiers of Allah and an actual military organization to defend the will of God. Even though they classify themselves as soldiers and a military organization, they aren't really one because they don't meet your own personal requirements?

2: Killing terrorists just makes more terrorists. THIS IS TOTALLY, TOTALLY OBVIOUS. Thus, to defeat terrorism, we must address the causes of terrorism. There is no violent solution to this problem.

Thats your own misguided opinion, and nothing more. We have to address the causes? Should we just, surrender anything to terrorists that they want to make them go away? Pacifism? Does the name Neville Chamberlain mean anything to you? We should all hold hands and get along?

Given that:

Terrorists exist
Governments have universally failed to solve the problem militarily
Governments have sometimes succeeded in solving the problem diplomatically

It can be deduced that:

Military solutions don't work
Diplomatic solutions can work

Lets use some British logic here::

Given that: John F. Kennedy was killed with a high powered and long range rifle.
Dr. M. L. King was killed with a high powered and long range rifle.
The students and other civillians killed during the shootings in Austin, Texas at the University of Texas were killed with a high powered and long range rifle.

It can be deduced that:
Lee Harvey Oswald was responsible for all the shootings.

[Adron]

Given that: John F. Kennedy was killed with a high powered and long range rifle.
Dr. M. L. King was killed with a high powered and long range rifle.
The students and other civillians killed during the shootings in Austin, Texas at the University of Texas were killed with a high powered and long range rifle.

It can be deduced that:
Lee Harvey Oswald was responsible for all the shootings.

That's Hazard logic. It's obvious to everyone (except Hazard) that Hazard logic is incorrect. What you may deduce is that high powered and long range rifles are bad, and that if those had all been properly destroyed, then those shootings would not have been done with those high powered and long range rifles.

[dxoigmn]

-Vietnam was not a "war" as there was no actual declaration of war. Do you not consider Vietnam a war?

-Hamas characterizes themselves as soldiers of Allah and an actual military organization to defend the will of God. Even though they classify themselves as soldiers and a military organization, they aren't really one because they don't meet your own personal requirements?

Vietnam is a country, not a war nor was it ever a war.  I like how we can suddenly change when or when not our classifications matter.  That is so American to use and appropriate things to their liking (i.e. We say Hamas is a terrorist organization, but for sake of argument let's throw a curve ball and say they're a military organization by their own definition just because I want point in this debate.)  Also, I fail to see how your logic works out.  I came to the same conclusion Adron did.

[Arta]

I think Hazard was trying to rubbish my viable logic by posting some nonsensical pseudo-logica and calling them the same thing. I don't see how that was ever going to work, but nevermind.

I don't see what my nationality has to do with anything, either. You were either implying that Britons are less logical than everyone else, which is absurd, or you were just trying to insult me, which is pointless. Either way, it weakens your argument. Unfortunately, I don't think you have has grasped the finer points of civilised debate, so this observation will no doubt fall on deaf ears. Or blind eyes? Who knows, and quite frankly, who cares? I stopped taking Hazard seriously months ago.

[Hazard]

Given that: John F. Kennedy was killed with a high powered and long range rifle.
Dr. M. L. King was killed with a high powered and long range rifle.
The students and other civillians killed during the shootings in Austin, Texas at the University of Texas were killed with a high powered and long range rifle.

It can be deduced that:
Lee Harvey Oswald was responsible for all the shootings.

That's Hazard logic. It's obvious to everyone (except Hazard) that Hazard logic is incorrect. What you may deduce is that high powered and long range rifles are bad, and that if those had all been properly destroyed, then those shootings would not have been done with those high powered and long range rifles.

Its pointing out how sneseless the logic that he, and you, use. He drew an absolute conclusion based on bad information which is simply not true. He thinks that the war on terror is not effective. Even though this isn't true, its probably just based on the fact that he is misinformed, but you or him will never admit to it.

You know, a simliar argument was used against others who had interesting arguments that people did not want to agree with. Two names in particular come to mind, Albert Einstein and Galileo. Just because you don't agree and are trying to force people to see it all your way doesn't mean your right Adron, get the fuck over yourself.

You're right, we should get rid of all high powered and long range rifles. Those are the only ones that ever do harm in the hands of bad people. Except of course the young man who murdered the Archduke Franz Ferdinand... guess we should get rid of pistols too. Yep, and there was that movie where that guy gutted that dirty Kraut with the knife so lets get rid of those. You know I saw this movie called "Walking Tall" where The Rock hit some guy with a baseball bat, so we should get rid of those. While we're at it, I read in the paper that a guy lit his house on fire and killed his ex-wife and two children, so lets ban gasoline and matches. The list goes on and on Adron.

[Hazard]

-Vietnam was not a "war" as there was no actual declaration of war. Do you not consider Vietnam a war?

-Hamas characterizes themselves as soldiers of Allah and an actual military organization to defend the will of God. Even though they classify themselves as soldiers and a military organization, they aren't really one because they don't meet your own personal requirements?

Vietnam is a country, not a war nor was it ever a war.  I like how we can suddenly change when or when not our classifications matter.  That is so American to use and appropriate things to their liking (i.e. We say Hamas is a terrorist organization, but for sake of argument let's throw a curve ball and say they're a military organization by their own definition just because I want point in this debate.)  Also, I fail to see how your logic works out.  I came to the same conclusion Adron did.

You know it is possible for more than one person to buy into a disillusion. Millions once believed that the Earth was a) flat and b) the center of the universe.

Dxo, the point was to get at the heart of Arta's argument. He said that Hamas is not a military group, even though they themselves constantly claim to be a military unit. I never said that they weren't. It is entirely possible to be a military group and commit terrorist acts.