So you feel there is a time to detonate explosives in the midst of a group of woman and children? You think target innocent civilians day in and day out is an exceptable form of expression? Sorry.. but theres something wrong with you
I think (not feel-there's a difference) that the circumstances must be extreme. To wit, all the following must obtain:
Let group A be some group of people, and group B be some group of people who are committing terrorist acts as described. Then:
1) Group A must have killed and/ or impoverished many members of group B indiscriminately, including women and children, prior to group B's commission of terrorism.
2) Group A must have ensured that group B has no means of legal recourse against group A.
3) Group A must have ensured that group B has no means of publicizing their plight or that such publicity can be made to be confused or discredited.
4) Group A must have ensured that group B has no other means to fight against group A, and that group B could not inflict any military casualties against group A by any means.
All those conditions obtain where group A is the Israelis and group B is the Palestinians. We can debate this, of course, but would you agree that if I am right about these conditions, such action is warranted?
Does not mean there not teaching these kids that they should strap martry bombs to there chest and run into a kidergarten class somewhere
I don't follow.
H@mas are terrorist targeting civilians, that makes them animals in todays day and age.
Then we are a bigger and more savage animal.
No. No. No. There is never, ever, an excuse for deliberately targeting women and children.
1) Who said anything about excuses?
2) Prove it. Show why such a thing would not be justified in the circumstances outlined above, and the following as well:
1) Suppose that aliens landed on earth and told you that they would destroy the planet if you didn't kill a small group of women and children.
2) Suppose that the women and children in question are themselves planning to destroy the planet and have the means to do so.
These may seem like far-fetched circumstances--but your claim is obviously that under no circumstance should women and children ever be deliberately killed. So you have to deal with them and show why we shouldn't kill those women and children.
In fact, I think that the circumstances I outlined at the top of this post justify it, though of all likely scenarios, they are the only ones that do.
Finally, realize that any reason you adduce for such an enterprise works equally against the United States, England, Israel, and assorted other Western Nations. When we rolled through Falluja and opened up with large caliber machine guns in neighborhoods we knew were populated with non-combatants, we were targetting women and children in exactly the same way that a bomber targets women and children. The point in either case is to inflict damage against a target perceived as doing you harm; that women and children happen to be present is secondary. Suppose someone has elected to blow up a bus. Do you think that they would abort this plan, if, on boarding the bus, they found it populated entirely by men?
I agree that women, children, and men ought to be able to live their lives without fear of being shot, stabbed, burned, blown up, run over, beaten, poisoned, driven from their land, or dispossesed in any way. But where one side has an overwhelming amount of power and they fail to exercise restraint thereof, and they commit such actions, what is left to the side that is victimized but to respond in kind?
