DebateGate

We're not talking about attacks by Arab nations that have militaries. We are talking about terrorism and attacks by small groups who are hostile to the nation of Israel.

Now, why would they be hostile to the state of Israel?

Let me ask you, do you feel that Israel is a true and fair democratic nation?

In reality, the battle against Israel is founded within the mutated interpretations of the Quran & Islam

Are you sure that Israeli political policies play no role in the backlash against their state?

Depends on their actions, rhetoric, who's supporting them, and if they do or don't condemn actual militant Islam as the means to all and everything Allah

So, in theory, one can wage a political battle against a state like Israel and even use terrorism as a possible weapon, so long as they don't use Islam as an aspect of their assault? In that case they should theoretically not have to worry about the United States' war on terrorism (though of course Israel will still be looking for them).

A) we're not targeting and attacking innocent civilians as they do.  B) If we don't kill as many of them now, they grow in #'s regardless.  C) the more we take the battle to them there, and the more we kill them there, the less we have to deal with them here, on our own soil.

True, we're not targetting civilians specifically, but if we kill them then the end result is the same. In other words, if Ahmed's home just got shelled by American artillery and he lost his wife and daughter, I don't think he's going to care if you are sent to tell him "at least we didn't specifically target your wife and daughter like Hassan over there might have." Yet, after you leave, Hassan may come over there and say, "look, now do you see why the Americans have to go? You've got nothing left to lose Ahmed. Join us. Help us to send these murderers home."

See? You make an ethical clarification which is true, but I'm not sure it makes a big difference to those who suffer from collateral damage.

If we don't kill as many of them now, they grow in #'s regardless

That is an interesting point. That raises more questions for me.

1. Why are they growing in numbers?
2. Are we just trying to break even (i.e. keep their numbers down)?
3. Is this a war that can be "won?" Can we say at the end of a certain day that the war is over? Will there be a VT Day?

It was called "The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502)."

Thanks Ami. But if you'll read what I said I acknowledged the war in Iraq. Despite what you might think of me and leftists in general, I'm not an idiot, nor am I blind to the outside world. My problem is with the "war on terror(ism)."

Now Sirs, you said that these children were taught this at brith and that makes it a "malignancy" and an "infection." I have a few questions that I need answers on, because I don't understand this line of reasoning and why this makes it acceptable to go to war.

1. Children grow up. Clearly not all of them become violent suicide bombers and terrorists. As adults we make our own decisions, correct? Does that not diminish this "infection?"

2. What if a terrorist group denounces any religious symbolism and makes their case strictly political? Say, to free Palestine of apartheid policies? Do they still need to be attacked under this "war on terror" or are they no longer an Islamofascist threat?

3. What if, by bombing and using other methods to attack these groups, you are only driving more individuals to this cause by causing "collateral damage?" We've seen this effect in Cambodia, Lebanon, and Northern Ireland, will tactics change or will more attacks be necessary?

there should be no argument over who they are and what they want. They are fascists of an Islamic sort, pure and simple

Interesting...

Bzzzzzz, wrong again.  It's a malignancy that already infects thousands upon thousands of Muslims and Islamic sympathizers.  But just in case you were about to pull some hyperbolic charge, I'm not advocating concentration camps for people that think that way.  I'm advocating taking out as many as possible the ones who've actually taken up arms in that cause, and actively planning attacks against our way of life, in the name of that idea.   See the difference?

People make decisions for themselves Sirs, how can an idea be a "malignancy" that is "infecting" thousands of Muslims and Islamic sympathizers (what is an Islamic sympathizer?)?

I never said anything about concentration camps, you brought that up without me ever saying a word. I asked if internment was the answer. Is internment the solution?

You're advocating killing people taking up arms in the name of that cause, but I suggest you don't even know which terrorist groups support such a cause. What if a terrorist group has no such belief, will they be left alone?

I was thinking of a good way to reply to this post.

I know it isn't the same thing, but one of my favorite books is All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Remarque. The movie has probably supplanted the book in fame, but the author was indeed a soldier in the Great War. The novel gives an incredible description, not only of warfare, but of the soldier's return home and how the world he once understood (nationalism, patriotism, etc) became a foreign and bizarre world. Also of note is that Remarque was thoroughly rebuked by the Nazis who encouraged burning of his book and refused to allow war to be portrayed in a non-heroic fashion.

Also of note is that the title in German is Im Westen nicht Neues, which means "nothing new in the west." It was an ironic title meant to convey a tongue-in-cheek slap at the "west" - the bastion of civilization.

But as I said, that isn't the same. I think your point is very valid. Really, a great post Domer.