StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Since it's really a question of distracting them from how bad their situation really is, so that they don't tall prey to some asshole who will offer them answers to fill that emptyness inside. Opiate the Masses. More, Better Television, Start shipping free TV's and Cabal access to all third world counties, of course we have to give the electricity too.

That should cure the terrorist problem in a few generations.

The common thread I'm hearing is that if it's not working out, it's OK to pretty much kill anybody we want, innocent or not. As long as it gets the job done.

In other words, we can be bigger terrorists than you can. What's the difference, then? The terrorists have certain goals, it's not working out, so they resort to violence against innocents. We have certain goals, they're not working out, so we figure it's OK to resort to violence against innocents too?

willburns84 wrote:A few specific scenarios to deal with... Generic in nature but people may draw real world parallels as they are wont to.

1) Internal threat. Group or groups of people with similar political beliefs are dedicated to the overthrow of the government - through any means necessary... Some factions of the group engage in non-violence, political activism, legal harrassment... Others are more violent - advocating and carrying out murder and other violent crimes to achieve their goals... These groups do not have the support of the populace as a whole, indeed have relatively little support from the "mainstream population."

Work within the bounds of the law. Of it's a democracy you're fighting for, then you have to work within the laws of that democracy.

willburns84 wrote:2) Internal threat, modified. As number #1 save say 20% of the population have no problem with any of what the terrorists are doing and in fact support them - "They killed the governor? I never liked him anyway..."

If it's in a democracy then they had the power to remove the Govenor in an election. There woud be no need for a terrorist organisation to kill him/her. Otherwise same as the answer to #1.

willburns84 wrote:3) External threat. Small groups of people, clandestinely supported by both foreign governments and private individuals from aboard (money - safe havens - training etc), engage in acts of terrorism against a Western country. How is the Western country to proceed?

Find the training cmps and exterminate them at source. If the host country objects it has to admit what it was doing and that would be an act of war -things progress from there. The Insurgents are dealt with as in #1.

willburns84 wrote:4) External threat - modified. A country, say non-nuclear third-world nation has dedicated itself to destroying your country through clandestine and terrorist means. And the vast majority of its population, say 80%, is supportive of this and moreover *hates* your country - if invaded directly, these people would suicide themselves in trying to kill your invading troops.

Why invade? keep destroying the camps and use Customs and Intel to track the insurgents. Deal with them as in #1

willburns84 wrote:5) External threat. Occupation. Your nation (for better or for worse) has invaded the terrorist sponsoring state in example number 4 in order to stop the attacks upon your country and topple the existing terrorist-sponsoring state...

Introduce aid to the populace, set up a government that the people vote for, fuck off and let them get on with it themselves (if they still hate you, then what can you do? You can't invade and occupy them forever so you back to the answer for #3). Use your time in-country to get Intel on their activities abroad. Deal with insurgents as in #1.

What do you think they should do in each case? And can you name any real world analogues for each?

Darth Wong wrote:The common thread I'm hearing is that if it's not working out, it's OK to pretty much kill anybody we want, innocent or not. As long as it gets the job done.

In other words, we can be bigger terrorists than you can. What's the difference, then? The terrorists have certain goals, it's not working out, so they resort to violence against innocents. We have certain goals, they're not working out, so we figure it's OK to resort to violence against innocents too?

There's a difference between targetting innocent people, and not caring about innocent bystanders.

And when you show restrait, and it just encourages more attacks, you say. "To hell with them." and protect your own lives.

Coming from a country where terrorists roam freely i'm not sure there is a way to combat terrorism ethically. You refuse to bow to their will wishes you people die, if you concede to them they demand more and more. All you can do is wipe them out and destroy them.

Darth Pounder wrote:Coming from a country where terrorists roam freely i'm not sure there is a way to combat terrorism ethically. You refuse to bow to their will wishes you people die, if you concede to them they demand more and more. All you can do is wipe them out and destroy them.

And even that doesn't work.

I've tried to get this through before, but people have TRIED to scour certain political or ethnic or religious groups before. Even if you dropped a holocaust's worth of bombs on the Middle East, you wouldn't get all the terrorists, and the survivors would hate you even more and do more evil things to you down the road. It's just impossible to wipe them out.

C.S.Strowbridge wrote: There's a difference between targetting innocent people, and not caring about innocent bystanders.

And when you show restrait, and it just encourages more attacks, you say. "To hell with them." and protect your own lives.

No, you work within the law of the Land, you develope intel assets, you build up cases against the terrorists and catch them in the act. You then hope some large foriegn power doesn't constantly stick it's fucking neb in where it has no business (yes, I'm looking at you America).
If you operat above the law, then what the fucks the point. If we wanted to every PIRA and other Paramilitary shitwit would disappear overnight. We know who they are and we know where they live. One written order and they cease to exist anymore, and we cease to exist as a Democracy and the Army and Police operate above their remits and legal powers.

You take your time, and you get them all (hoping some member of the Kennedy clan doesn't fuck everything up). Sure they will take advantage of your political system and laws, but they will mess up and whenthey do you grab them/shoot them. Eventually you get them all, or they fade away.

Darth Pounder wrote:Coming from a country where terrorists roam freely i'm not sure there is a way to combat terrorism ethically. You refuse to bow to their will wishes you people die, if you concede to them they demand more and more. All you can do is wipe them out and destroy them.

And you want to live in a country where we wipe out terrorists? BTW what evidence do we give that they were terrorists? What's to stop anyone who speaks out against the government suddenly vanishing? This isn't slippery slope fallacy, this is a very real problem as it would be the government acting as unlimited executioner.
Yes the Bastards get away with a lot, but we do get them and we kill them when the law allows it. You want a democracy? Then unfortunately you take the good with the bad (not much of a comfort to you, but I've been out there, and I do know what it's like, so I'm not offering hollow platitudes here).

Well, responses are largely what I expected them to be.

Now here is a question. Assassination.

Should an aggrevied country have the right to assassinate terrorists and terrorist leaders? Is that an ethical thing to do? These are people who will never ever be brought to trial in your country for any crimes they have committed against your people (they aren't in the habit of just happening to find themselves under arrest in a country with extradition treaties to your country).

All things being equal, is it more ethical to try and take them alive for trial back in your country? Or is it more ethical to kill them when the opportunity arises? There are consequences for either course of action...

And nothing about what is or is not a terrorist. That is up to you and your definition of what a terrorist is or is not. The point of the question is more of "What would you do?" situation. This is *your* country that *you* are responsible for.

Rob Wilson wrote:

C.S.Strowbridge wrote: There's a difference between targetting innocent people, and not caring about innocent bystanders.

And when you show restrait, and it just encourages more attacks, you say. "To hell with them." and protect your own lives.

No, you work within the law of the Land,

But they are outside your land and therefore your law.

you develope intel assets, you build up cases against the terrorists and catch them in the act.

And if you don't catch them in the act, you lose lives.

You then hope some large foriegn power doesn't constantly stick it's fucking neb in where it has no business (yes, I'm looking at you America).

What about Saudia Arabia? Or Syria? Lebbanon? Etc.?

These people are also interferring and that must be taken into consideration. You don't have one group with one leader you can take out, you and institutionalized hatred that will breed more and more terrorists regardless of you action. Simply being is enough cause for you to be attacked, therefore, you must defend yourself with all available methods.

If you operat above the law, then what the fucks the point. If we wanted to every PIRA and other Paramilitary shitwit would disappear overnight. We know who they are and we know where they live. One written order and they cease to exist anymore, and we cease to exist as a Democracy and the Army and Police operate above their remits and legal powers.

Yeah, and Thatcher tried that with great sucess, until the media got hold of the story. They operate outside the law, they lose protection under it. If they win, you also cease being a democracy, cause the government isn't for the people, but for the people killing the people.

You take your time, and you get them all (hoping some member of the Kennedy clan doesn't fuck everything up). Sure they will take advantage of your political system and laws, but they will mess up and whenthey do you grab them/shoot them. Eventually you get them all, or they fade away.

Not when you are outnumbered 1000 - 1. Not when they can replace terrorists faster than you can catch them. You must take out their leadership and their infrastructure. 'But their infrastructure is civilian infrastructure, so you're dooming the civilians to lives of destitution!' Yeah, sucks to be them. Maybe they should stand up to their 'government' and not chant death threats against me. Maybe then I'll care.

willburns84 wrote:Well, responses are largely what I expected them to be.

considering they've ranged right across the spectrum, what exactly were you expecting? Hardly a definite result is it.

willburns84 wrote:Now here is a question.

How about you answer the question you've already posed, as you've been requested to, then we'll think about answering the flamebait.

Rob Wilson wrote:

willburns84 wrote:Well, responses are largely what I expected them to be.

considering they've ranged right across the spectrum, what exactly were you expecting? Hardly a definite result is it.

willburns84 wrote:Now here is a question.

How about you answer the question you've already posed, as you've been requested to, then we'll think about answering the flamebait.

::chuckle:: I was expected a wide variety of results, so I did recieve what I expected - some posts more sardonic and eloquent than others.

Personally I support assassination of terrorists and terror cells.

Flame on!

Rob Wilson wrote:

Darth Pounder wrote:Coming from a country where terrorists roam freely i'm not sure there is a way to combat terrorism ethically. You refuse to bow to their will wishes you people die, if you concede to them they demand more and more. All you can do is wipe them out and destroy them.

And you want to live in a country where we wipe out terrorists? BTW what evidence do we give that they were terrorists? What's to stop anyone who speaks out against the government suddenly vanishing? This isn't slippery slope fallacy, this is a very real problem as it would be the government acting as unlimited executioner.
Yes the Bastards get away with a lot, but we do get them and we kill them when the law allows it. You want a democracy? Then unfortunately you take the good with the bad (not much of a comfort to you, but I've been out there, and I do know what it's like, so I'm not offering hollow platitudes here).

You are in charge / are responsible for your country - be it Canada, the United States, Belize, Columbia, The Republic of the Sith or the Terran Imperial Republic or anything else you want it to be. You have intelligence reports, witness accounts, and the like which establishes what these groups of people have done, what they are planning to do. Whatever they are called, they use acts of extraordinary violence to achieve their ends, usually with as high a body count as possible to achieve goals that are the exact opposite of what you want - or threaten something quite precious to you. What their aims are or what they threaten is wholey (?spelling?) up to you.

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote:

C.S.Strowbridge wrote: There's a difference between targetting innocent people, and not caring about innocent bystanders.

And when you show restrait, and it just encourages more attacks, you say. "To hell with them." and protect your own lives.

No, you work within the law of the Land,

But they are outside your land and therefore your law.

No the question was concerning insurgents in your country, so well within your laws.

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote:you develope intel assets, you build up cases against the terrorists and catch them in the act.

And if you don't catch them in the act, you lose lives.

hence the buildng up the intel part. If you didn't catch thm in the act then you didn't know about them to start with so you couldn't have done anything about them anyway. You'd have lost lives either way.

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote:You then hope some large foriegn power doesn't constantly stick it's fucking neb in where it has no business (yes, I'm looking at you America).

What about Saudia Arabia? Or Syria? Lebbanon? Etc.?

These people are also interferring and that must be taken into consideration. You don't have one group with one leader you can take out, you and institutionalized hatred that will breed more and more terrorists regardless of you action. Simply being is enough cause for you to be attacked, therefore, you must defend yourself with all available methods.

Well I was refering to NI, but you are dealing with Israel I presume. Again the questions were targeted at Insurgents, and once they are operating on your soil you deal with them within the law. If soveriegn nations try to use any means other than diplomacy to interfere, thn it's no longer terrorism it's warfare and there are systems inplace to deal with that.

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote:If you operat above the law, then what the fucks the point. If we wanted to every PIRA and other Paramilitary shitwit would disappear overnight. We know who they are and we know where they live. One written order and they cease to exist anymore, and we cease to exist as a Democracy and the Army and Police operate above their remits and legal powers.

Yeah, and Thatcher tried that with great sucess, until the media got hold of the story. They operate outside the law, they lose protection under it. If they win, you also cease being a democracy, cause the government isn't for the people, but for the people killing the people.

Got hold of what story exactly?
The terrorists operate outside the law, but then so do Criminals by definition. It's what the law is there for in the first place. You can't just throw it away for one set of criminals because you feel like it.

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote:You take your time, and you get them all (hoping some member of the Kennedy clan doesn't fuck everything up). Sure they will take advantage of your political system and laws, but they will mess up and whenthey do you grab them/shoot them. Eventually you get them all, or they fade away.

Not when you are outnumbered 1000 - 1. Not when they can replace terrorists faster than you can catch them. You must take out their leadership and their infrastructure. 'But their infrastructure is civilian infrastructure, so you're dooming the civilians to lives of destitution!' Yeah, sucks to be them. Maybe they should stand up to their 'government' and not chant death threats against me. Maybe then I'll care.

Your outnumbered 1000 -1 by civilians and you have tanks and every bit of weaponry known to man short of nukes. Israel is fucked because it's an occupying Army in Hostile Territory, no matter how you dress it up, that's what it is. Unless they deport all Palestinians and arabs outside of Israeli territory and then close the Borders, there's little they can do, except live their lives as best they can and adhere to their own laws. Because nothing short of genocide is ever going to convince the other religions in the area that the Israeli's belong there. And Isralel is never going to leave because they think they belong there, despite being placed there artificially by other nations.

Like I said they are an occupying army and have all the problems this entails. Unless thy seal their borders and control the influx of Arab/palestinians into Israel they will always have massive insurgency problems, far beyond anything else in the west. Still, regardlss of the scale of the problem, if they want to be a democracy then they have to act like one and suffer any consequences that come from that - something they are very well aware of.

willburns84 wrote:
You are in charge / are responsible for your country - be it Canada, the United States, Belize, Columbia, The Republic of the Sith or the Terran Imperial Republic or anything else you want it to be. You have intelligence reports, witness accounts, and the like which establishes what these groups of people have done, what they are planning to do. Whatever they are called, they use acts of extraordinary violence to achieve their ends, usually with as high a body count as possible to achieve goals that are the exact opposite of what you want - or threaten something quite precious to you. What their aims are or what they threaten is wholey (?spelling?) up to you.

Well that's easy, if I have the evidence against them and it's good enough for action to be taken, then I take action. I arrest them, try them and sentence them to prison. I fail to see the problem here.

willburns84 wrote: Personally I support assassination of terrorists and terror cells.

Killing them as they commit there acts because there's no other way of stopping them is just about tolerable in a democracy (he had his hand on a detonator, pointing weapon at civilians, had shot someone and possibly had the ammo to shoot some more, etc), but anything else is operating above the law and is as bad as the terrorists themselves.

In fact if you were prepared to kill them to establish your goals outside of the constraints of the nations law, perhaps you'd care to tell me what stops you being defined as a terrorist?

Nice to know you advocate your own execution.

It always amazes me the lengths of legalistic claptrap people will resort to in order to justify using terrorism to fight terrorism.

I wonder what they expect to happen. If the occupation and deprivations continue indefinitely, do they figure the Palestinians will eventually give up and lay down for creeping demise by hostile settlement? If they go apeshit and start killing people left, right, and centre to teach them a lesson, do they figure they'll still be able to lay claim to moral imperative? They would in the eyes of someone like Shep, but what about normal people? I don't know what these people expect to happen.

Rob Wilson wrote:

willburns84 wrote: You are in charge / are responsible for your country - be it Canada, the United States, Belize, Columbia, The Republic of the Sith or the Terran Imperial Republic or anything else you want it to be. You have intelligence reports, witness accounts, and the like which establishes what these groups of people have done, what they are planning to do. Whatever they are called, they use acts of extraordinary violence to achieve their ends, usually with as high a body count as possible to achieve goals that are the exact opposite of what you want - or threaten something quite precious to you. What their aims are or what they threaten is wholey (?spelling?) up to you.

Well that's easy, if I have the evidence against them and it's good enough for action to be taken, then I take action. I arrest them, try them and sentence them to prison. I fail to see the problem here.

Touche. I concede that point.

Now, kill them in the field or let them wind up as bitches in prison.

Hmmm, on the other hand, they might find supporters in that prison... Or they might be placed in solitary for the whole of their time. And hopefully whoever is running the prison will not allow them interviews with media of any kind. Why? Don't allow this person, these people to continue their little crusade from the tax-payer funded living spaces that they have been provided... Then again, that would be against the principles of many western democracies.

Darth Wong wrote:It always amazes me the lengths of legalistic claptrap people will resort to in order to justify using terrorism to fight terrorism.

I wonder what they expect to happen. If the occupation and deprivations continue indefinitely, do they figure the Palestinians will eventually give up and lay down for creeping demise by hostile settlement? If they go apeshit and start killing people left, right, and centre to teach them a lesson, do they figure they'll still be able to lay claim to moral imperative? They would in the eyes of someone like Shep, but what about normal people? I don't know what these people expect to happen.

It's an emotional subject and one it's difficult for some people to think clearly about. In the case of Israel, they KNOW that they must act above reproach in the international spotlight or they lose the moral high ground (which is what gave them their current standing). Also the Israeli people do believe in their Democracy and as much as they hate to live in what is a warzone, they will act as members of a democracy because that's what they are.

Do we have any Israeli adults on the board, people who've done their stint in the IDF? They'll tell you what i'm talking about. They'll be damned if the action of others will stop them living their lives as they have the right to. And they'll be damned if they'll sink to their enemies level.

I believe Coyote does indeed support what you have said Rob.

willburns84 wrote:
Now, kill them in the field or let them wind up as bitches in prison.

You've arrested them, so they go to trial and prison. As to kiling them in the field, unless they are in the act of killing others or you cannot stop them through any other means from killing others at that moment, then they get taken alive. Just like any other law breaker.

willburns84 wrote:Hmmm, on the other hand, they might find supporters in that prison... Or they might be placed in solitary for the whole of their time. And hopefully whoever is running the prison will not allow them interviews with media of any kind. Why? Don't allow this person, these people to continue their little crusade from the tax-payer funded living spaces that they have been provided... Then again, that would be against the principles of many western democracies.

How many prisoners do you see giving interviews in jail on a weekly basis? Or at all for that matter. If however it's a protected right in the country in question for a prisoner to be able to hold media interviews, then the prisoner can do so. Whether anyone watches is another matter. Like I said, if you live in a democracy, you have to take the good with the bad.

Rob Wilson wrote: How many prisoners do you see giving interviews in jail on a weekly basis? Or at all for that matter. If however it's a protected right in the country in question for a prisoner to be able to hold media interviews, then the prisoner can do so. Whether anyone watches is another matter. Like I said, if you live in a democracy, you have to take the good with the bad.

More than either of us would be willing to guess at as far as number of prisoners interviewed my media personnel. Then again, what was I worried about with the media once they're in prison. Think about the travesty of a trial... Here's the perfect soap box to push the terrorist's political agenda.

I appreciate the needs of a democracy / republic / free society, but there has to be some common sense. Someone here in the Forums has a sig which goes to the effect of "Have an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out." I'd like to think that once a certain magical level of behavior is achieved the clamps will come down, "Okay, you've killed a hundred of our people, no more conjugal visits or interviews with sympathetic journalists."

Yes, yes, I appreciate the points about a free society.

willburns84 wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote: How many prisoners do you see giving interviews in jail on a weekly basis? Or at all for that matter. If however it's a protected right in the country in question for a prisoner to be able to hold media interviews, then the prisoner can do so. Whether anyone watches is another matter. Like I said, if you live in a democracy, you have to take the good with the bad.

More than either of us would be willing to guess at as far as number of prisoners interviewed my media personnel. Then again, what was I worried about with the media once they're in prison. Think about the travesty of a trial... Here's the perfect soap box to push the terrorist's political agenda.

There's such a thing as Closed Courts. As long as the the law is followed, he/she has no soapbox. As to the interviews, well I'm trying to remember the last time a convicted terrorist gave an interview from prison in the UK. Did Mcviegh give one? And if it's his constitutionally protected right to do so, them's the breaks.

Rob Wilson wrote:

C.S.Strowbridge wrote: But they are outside your land and therefore your law.

No the question was concerning insurgents in your country, so well within your laws.

Wasn't there four seperate situations?

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote:you develope intel assets, you build up cases against the terrorists and catch them in the act.

And if you don't catch them in the act, you lose lives.

hence the buildng up the intel part. If you didn't catch thm in the act then you didn't know about them to start with so you couldn't have done anything about them anyway. You'd have lost lives either way.

But while you're building your intel you'd be losing lives. Besides, you could get information that's not admissable in court. In that case, what do you do? Lose a trial, or take them out.

Knowledge isn't a binary proposition. You might know enough to know something's about to happen and who's involved, but not enough to prosecute.

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote:You then hope some large foriegn power doesn't constantly stick it's fucking neb in where it has no business (yes, I'm looking at you America).

What about Saudia Arabia? Or Syria? Lebbanon? Etc.?

These people are also interferring and that must be taken into consideration. You don't have one group with one leader you can take out, you and institutionalized hatred that will breed more and more terrorists regardless of you action. Simply being is enough cause for you to be attacked, therefore, you must defend yourself with all available methods.

Well I was refering to NI, but you are dealing with Israel I presume.

I think NI had outside help too. Or at least ties with other terrorist organizations. Like I've said before, once you set up the distribution network, it's really no difference to smuggle drugs, guns, people, etc.

Again the questions were targeted at Insurgents, and once they are operating on your soil you deal with them within the law. If soveriegn nations try to use any means other than diplomacy to interfere, thn it's no longer terrorism it's warfare and there are systems inplace to deal with that.

But if you can't risk open warfare, and the terrorists are outside your legal juristiction you must use any means necessary to take them out.

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote:If you operat above the law, then what the fucks the point. If we wanted to every PIRA and other Paramilitary shitwit would disappear overnight. We know who they are and we know where they live. One written order and they cease to exist anymore, and we cease to exist as a Democracy and the Army and Police operate above their remits and legal powers.

Yeah, and Thatcher tried that with great sucess, until the media got hold of the story. They operate outside the law, they lose protection under it. If they win, you also cease being a democracy, cause the government isn't for the people, but for the people killing the people.

Got hold of what story exactly?

Killing off IRA leaders.

The terrorists operate outside the law, but then so do Criminals by definition. It's what the law is there for in the first place. You can't just throw it away for one set of criminals because you feel like it.

One group is just breaking the law, the other is trying to destroy a nation.

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote:You take your time, and you get them all (hoping some member of the Kennedy clan doesn't fuck everything up). Sure they will take advantage of your political system and laws, but they will mess up and whenthey do you grab them/shoot them. Eventually you get them all, or they fade away.

Not when you are outnumbered 1000 - 1. Not when they can replace terrorists faster than you can catch them. You must take out their leadership and their infrastructure. 'But their infrastructure is civilian infrastructure, so you're dooming the civilians to lives of destitution!' Yeah, sucks to be them. Maybe they should stand up to their 'government' and not chant death threats against me. Maybe then I'll care.

Your outnumbered 1000 -1 by civilians and you have tanks and every bit of weaponry known to man short of nukes.

Two points:

1.) Those civilians sometimes have bombs strapped to their chests. You can't tell Jews and Arabs apart just by looking at them. So you certainly can't tell who's a terrorist either.

2.) Those civilians know about you weaponry long before they picked up a rock. I've got a gun, you've got a rock. You try and kill me with that rock (and that's what they are doing, this isn't some dope smoker protesting the WTO, which they couldn't spell let alone explain.) Anywho, You try and kill me with your rock. I kill you with the my gun. Who's to blame? Maybe the first person with a rock could be excused for not expecting it, but the second? Or the seventh? Or the hundreth? Somewhere along the line they should learn. 'Throwing rock at heavily armed man = Bad idea.' But no, they're too busy learning about the Jewish conspiracy to rule the world to learn that.

Israel is fucked because it's an occupying Army in Hostile Territory, no matter how you dress it up, that's what it is.

And Pre-1967 when Israel took over the land, what were they then?
And Pre-1948 when Israel didn't exists, what were they then?

Israel is fucked cause the Arabs are teaching their kids that Jews are evil. And have been since before modern Israel existed, don't fucking try and blame the Arabs' actions and beliefs on Israel. The facts clearly prove otherwise.

And Isralel is never going to leave because they think they belong there, despite being placed there artificially by other nations.

Like Palestine has any basis in reality other than a polictal creation.

Like I said they are an occupying army and have all the problems this entails. Unless thy seal their borders and control the influx of Arab/palestinians into Israel they will always have massive insurgency problems, far beyond anything else in the west.

And if they do that, they get called racist. ... Well, they get called racists even more.

Still, regardlss of the scale of the problem, if they want to be a democracy then they have to act like one and suffer any consequences that come from that - something they are very well aware of.

The only reason the Israelis are showing restraint is to prevent the US from turning against them. If the US did, Israel would start an all out war. One the Arabs couldn't win.

Rob Wilson wrote:

Darth Pounder wrote:Coming from a country where terrorists roam freely i'm not sure there is a way to combat terrorism ethically. You refuse to bow to their will wishes you people die, if you concede to them they demand more and more. All you can do is wipe them out and destroy them.

And you want to live in a country where we wipe out terrorists? BTW what evidence do we give that they were terrorists? .

Members Of Sinn Fein/IRA openly admit they were active members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army. Our own Education minister was Commander of the Derry Brigade.