First of all, let me define "terror" in the form I use it when making this statement
Ok, it might work if you change the definition. But I could change the definition to 'Kissing babies'.
I "change" the definition, because I am trying to describe the _tactic_ part of terrorism, and not the more general phenomenon which can apply to a police
Israel rarely has to deal with hostage situations...
Now instead of taking live hostages they just kill people outright. Nice improvement.
The strategy involved in killing groups is entirely different than the hostage strategy. They've removed any form of hostage strategy. They are not capable of removing terrorism as a strategy.
Show me how the US by policy attacks civilians (targetted, not collateral) without using hearsay or speculation, and I'll consider the US a terrorist organization.
The US supports the use of terror against the palestinians. In greece during the US sponsered dictatorship the junta used terror on the greek population. By your alternative definition of terror this probably doesn't count as the US isn't the ones actually *doing* the terror, they are paying for others to do it for them. But by my definition of terror anyone who supports the terrorists is also guilty.
First you'd have to prove that the palestinians are terror victims. The palestinians have no inherent right to that land, and in fact lost any possible right to the land when they lost an offensive war against Israel. The palestinian territory is by all rights spoils of war. The Israeli tolerance of palestinians is pure charity, since they could simply evict them back to the various middle-eastern states from which they were first evicted.
As to the Greek situation, I don't know much about it, but support of a particular force _before_ it has started to use terroristic means, is not equal to providing moral and financial support intended to advance the use of terorrism.
Similarly, if we destroy every terrorist organization we can find, make war upon those nations which supported them, freeze the US assets of any country who won't freeze the terrorist assets, and generally make it a costly tactic, then the use of terrorism as a tactic will cease.
People have been advocating taking a hardline since time immemorial. Mostly it doesn't work. Largely because you are tackling the symptoms of the problem and not the actual problem itself. If you have a broken leg you don't just keep taking more painkillers until it stops hurting because the problems will just recur when you stop. You get the leg fixed. That is the current problem. The US is dosing up on painkillers to fight this War on Some Terror but eventually they are going to have to solve the underlying problem which is the broken leg. No matter how much resources you pour into it it won't solve it unless you cure the underlying cause.
while the painkillers won't heal the leg, even while the leg is healing, you continue to use painkillers to stop the pain. I don't entirely agree with the interventionist policies (although I haven't rejected it entirely yet either), but that doesn't mean that terrorism is a tolerable action. As such, it should be fought against at all costs. In the meantime, we should be trying to lessen our intervention. However, bin-Laden's complaints are about military bases that have at one time been welcomed in the area. We are not subject to his opinion on anything.
You know if there are no naughty people left, it's pretty darn effective.
You'll never get them all, sorry to break it to you.
We don't need to. we just have to make it so expensive that it doesn't happen _often_. Right now it is considered an effective tactic by most, and is considered morally permissable by a decent number of countries. _That_ is what we need to get rid of. Individual terrorism will always exist, but institutional terrorism is a vulnerable enemy, if we're willing to go after it.
Regarding the Geneva convention, if they break the rules that makes it ok for you to break the rules?
If I'm not mistaken, that's the whole point of the Geneval convention. The signatories bind themselves to the convention in order to protect them from other signatories. If you aren't signed, then all's fair. Most countries find the Geneval convention rather useful in protecting themselves, so they'll bind themselves to it to take part in its protection, which also limits their action upon those signatories. It _is_ after all a mere treaty and not the word of god from upon high.
