> What I was trying to say was that killing can often times solve problems, contrary to "killing doesn't solve anything." It shouldn't be the first resort, and it shouldn't be done for anything but the most serious purposes, but when used in this fashion, it is effective. For example, who would argue (other than my friend, and yes she did argue this point) that killing Hitler in 1935 would have avoided the Holocaust? Notice that I'm not arguing that it would have prevented WWII - it may have, but it could have happened anyways, on a smaller scale or something - but I figure the odds of the Holocaust happening without Hitler in charge would be very small. In the same vein, Israel routinely targets and kills suspected militant leaders - not the (for lack of a better description) front line troops, but the commanders, bomb builders, etc. If by killing a Hamas bomb maker, Israel can prevent him from making another bomb that would kill Israeli citizens, I say do it.
>

I agree fully - However, you have to have a pretty good crystal ball...

Beside, there is no telling what would have happened otherwise. Anyway... Except in SWATesque intervention, killings rarely stop things that have already started.

Etienne