Especially when the "occupiers" only become such because of being attacked, and these occupiers tried to give everything back in return for peace (after the Egyptians wouldn't accept Gaza being given back to them, cause they didn't want to deal with such a radicalized population).
How is that? Many insurgencies and terrorist groups have been put down. They are doing a good job of it in the Philippines, Fujimora virtually eliminated the Shining Path (who now, without a tough president to challenge them, are making a minor comeback), and Colombia is making progress against FARC and ELN. And contrary to what you are saying, the government actually should have gotten tough sooner, and Pastrana's big mistake was trying to reason and appease these people, during which he ceded a Switzerland sized land that became nothing but a terrorist ground for recruiting, profiting (off more drugs), stockpiling and staging attacks. And working to take it back cost the military time, resources and many lives. And there are many other examples. So how are there "NO EXAMPLES OF FORCE SHORT OF GENOCIDE WORKING AGAINST TERRORISM????"
The terrorists who flew the plane were looking to kill tens of thousands of "infidels." They weren't trying to avoid civilians, they were looking to kill anyone and everyone they could who didn't see things exactly the way they did, with no tolerance for any other views. Big difference from anything Darkhorse is saying or would advocate. And, by the way, the terrorists certainly weren't looking to reason or negotiate, as the Israelis have done with Egypt and tried to do, in very good faith, with the Palestinians.
Thos who assassinate, rather than "capture and bring to trial, are the wild eyed crazies," But those who seek to kill any and all civilians possible, and who refuse all negotiation (even when offered something beyond fair), are simply a "group that sees no reasonable alternative." Do you even try to be the least bit fair and reasonable, as you claim to be?
I confess to not being as up to date on the above conflicts you mention. "Progress" rather than solved seems to characterize the above situations at best. My point was that resolution of the core issues is what ends these types of conflicts rather than military force. The US used to have Puerto Rican terrorism when I was growing up as well as some anti Vietnam war terrorism. I think the Puerto Rican terror was resolved after a number of votes on independence, not bombing of Puerto Rican villages. Do you believe that the Palestinians would still be sending suicide bombers to Israel if an independent Palestine was in existence?
And the funny thing is the World Court, which forced this case (since there mandate is to take only disputes that both sides agree to bring, and Israel did not agree here), is supposed to be an fair and impartial "COURT." Yet, before the case even began, the Arab members who help to judge began making harsh statements and taking a side. As far as the foreign aid, the funny thing is that Israel (along with the US) offered tons of this aid themselves, in exchange for peace during the Oslo accords.
Hey ART, rather than waste your time here on those of us who have trouble following your fuzzy logic, why not do something really useful and go to Gaza City to serve as a human shield for the poor defenseless misunderstood peace-lovin' Hamas? In fact, why not take the rest of your cohorts in incoherence with you? In light of your sacrifice, we could start a collection to raise funds for your airfare here on ET. Indeed, I would bet that it would take no more than 5 minutes to raise the required sum. You game?
The terrorists mission was ultimately based in their faith, as is the fundamentalism of the Christian variety that is equally self righteous in nature. Naturally most Americans of the Christian and Jewish variety feel their religion is right and superior to Muslims in their faith, just as strongly as the Muslims feel the the same way about Christians and Jews and their status as "infidels." The question is, if they are willing to strap on a bomb for their God, does that make their faith stronger than "ours" if we are not willing to do the same? If the roles were reversed, and they had the technology and power, what would we do, and would they call us barbaric? Point being, that the conflict has its roots in faith, not in reason. We ain't fighting the "Godless" communists this time, these are men with full faith in the God of Abraham. The Qurâan identifies Allah as none other than the God to whom Abraham offered âsubmissionâ (âislam) in the episode Jews and Christians know so well from Genesis 22, the story of the binding of Isaac. As the paradigmatic Muslim or âsubmitter,â Abraham then made the original, paradigmatic pilgrimage to Mecca, Muslims believe, accompanied by the very son, Ishmael, whom Allah had rescued so dramatically. President Bush said on November 20, 2003 that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Speaking in London at a joint news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush was asked his thoughts on how the war on terrorism and his promotion of freedom intersects with his Christian faith: "I do say that freedom is the Almighty's gift to every person," Bush answered. "I also condition it by saying freedom is not America's gift to the world. It's much greater than that, of course. And I believe we worship the same God."