what's wrong with killing terrorists?

Question

So many people are really paranoid about our military hunting down the bastards, but there isn't anything wrong with it.

Israel is doing the right thing. We need to support them and attack the Palestinians and Syria and Iran.

Answer 1

Nothing is wrong, Israel should be applauded!!!

Answer 2

Hunting down terrorists is fine with me,in fact I think Bin Laden should have been hunted down like a dog years ago. The Israelis
are doing what they have to do and as an ally the U.S. should support Israel,I'm all for that too. I just don't think launching a full-scale offensive against Palestine,Syria and Iran while the Army's
already entrenched in Iraq is such a good idea. There are limits
to what the military can do. Besides,not all the people there are
terrorists so it would be overkill.

Answer 3

Terrorists are people - what's wrong with killing any person?

If you define terrorists as people who kill innocent people, and you say that it's ok to kill them (maybe because it reduces the total number of deaths), then that's one thing. But, if you accidentally kill one innocent person while you're trying to kill the terrorists, then you yourself have become a terrorist.

As for attacking the Palestinians, Syria, and Iran, there is probably a reason why Israel hasn't done this outright already. Could the U.S. handle a war with Iran, especially considering our involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.? What about North Korea? It's a slippery slope...

Answer 4

It's basically murder. Murder is against God's commandments. If you wnat to deal with them then put them in jail for life with no chance of parole. Their punishment will be given to them after their death in prison. There is no need to kill them. The things that Israel is doing are not right at all. They are intruding on another country by killing innocent. I admit that they are no doubt killing people with bad intentions, but they don't know for sure that's all the people they're killing. This is why I don't support the USA-Iraq war. Though our war's intentions are controversial, as to whether it was for oil, revenge, or what. It's like the thing with Reagan, Bush, and other USA presidents, hunting down terrorists. Except these suspected terrorists are in our own country, not somebody elses. Also, no action is taken on anybody without definite proof of connections with terrorist agencies. Also, we don't tap people who aren't suspected, anybody whose phone is tapped or any other type of surveillance is put on, is a suspected terrorist. So I don't get what the American population is so worried about, but that's another issue.

Answer 5

While we should support them, I don't think we should become directly involved in the conflict that has recently broken out. For one, we are spending like 3 billion $ a day in Iraq. Our forces are stretched thin and we can't afford to widen our area of operations at this time. For two, it is their conflict to fight. While we can support them in their defense, it is not our place to contribute with direct military force. I would say that reason 3 is that our invovlement would only make them(Syria, Iran, Palestine) hate America more, but I'm not sure that would really matter.

Answer 6

And who determines who the terrorists are? Who protects the innocents who live in those countries when only a relatively small percentage are actual terrorists? Israel was LOOKING for a reason to go after Lebannon. The truth is they could be hitting more of the Hezbollah targets in the south instead of hitting innocent people of Beirut.

Answer 7

You think a 6 year old is a terrorist? A 2 month old? Civilians are often the targets of the people you mentioned.

Israel is going too far.

Answer 8

Can you define "terrorist"?

wikipedia definition of terrorism:
Terrorism refers to a strategy of using violence, or threat of violence, to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately, to bring about compliance with specific political, religious, ideological, or personal demands.

...Funny though, it doesn't say anything about who is the one BEING violent. So if a certain government uses violence (caused by someone else) or the threat of violence (issued by someone else) to bring about compliance with specific political, religious and ideological demands, can the government be called a terrorist organization? I have a feeling that the logic in this will be lost on most of my conservative friends...

Same article in wikipedia continues:
The term is often used pejoratively to assert that the violence against civilians is immoral, wanton, and unjustified, that the terrorist attacks are "indiscriminate", "targeting civilians", or executed "with disregard for human life".

..hmmm..targeting civilians... of course Israel is only targeting military targets, like bridges, fuel tanks, airport runways, cities.. so they can't be called terrorists.

More from wikipedia:
Due to the term's pejorative connotations, groups that are called "terrorist" by the popular media typically do not accept that identity for themselves. Instead, terms may be used that reflect ideological or ethnic struggle. Examples include: separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla (Spanish for "small war"), rebel...

...Hmmm... point of view, right? Were the revolutionaries of 1776 called terrorists by England?

And still more stuff from wikipedia:
Western media often labels groups or individuals "terrorist" when fighting for liberation, and the same people "statesmen" when they succeed in liberating their country. Two examples are Nobel Peace Prize laureates Menachem Begin and Nelson Mandela.

....funny, huh?...

And the last little bit from wikipedia:
States that are close allies, for reasons of culture or politics, can disagree over whether members of a certain organization are terrorists. For example, some branches of the United States government refused to label members of the IRA "terrorists," even though the IRA used violent methods against one of the United States' closest allies (Britain).

....so now I am confused.. can you ask the question again.. and can you be a little more specific? Who are terrorists? How do I identify a terrorist?

Answer 9

What you don't understand is that liberals believe that America has caused every problem in the world. And, thus, so have America's two friends - Israel and Great Britain. So America must've done something to make Muslims the ultra-violent, genocide-intent murderers that they are. America's fault. Always America's fault.

Answer 10

it pisses me off how the world criticizes america for defending herself. u cant tell who is civilian and who is terrorist in iraq and afghanistan until they pull out and ak 47 from under their robe. a six year old kid could be waiving at you and smiling and the next thing u know shes blowing herself up. as for the israeli army those kids should stop throwing rocks at the tanks and maybe they wont shoot. from a distance u cant tell if thats a grenade or a rock until it hits so just stay inside and there wont be any problems

Answer 11

some people dont want us to sink down to there level, but i think that it would be better to give them life sentence with a bunch of terrorist hating thugs, like sick people that like to touch children:life sentence i think that a life sentence in prison is worse because thugs hate that. and plus what is worth then having nothing to do all day for the rest of your life and not being able to be free? but then again those people arent really that free in that country anyway.