US bombs Pakistan

[Lawrence of Arabia]

hey, they have a new type of Kebab; on top of the Döner Kebab, they now offer the Abu Khabab.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

create your own visited countries map
or vertaling Duits Nederlands

The Axis of Evil + G2 (Afghanistan/ Libya)

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
hey, they have a new type of Kebab; on top of the Döner Kebab, they now offer the Abu Khabab.

I heard he has an even newer nomme de guerre - Organ Donor Khabab.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by notyoueither
NATO disagreed in regards to 9/11, AQ and the Taliban as the de facto government of Afghanistan.

Is what NATO did illegal?

No. Because legitimate requests were made to hand over the criminals concerned, and these were ignored by the Taliban.

But what NATO did was self serving and hypocritical, as usual. I imagine that there would be a fair few Latin Americans who have legitimate reasons to extradite US citizens who acted in an equivalent fashion to Osama Bin Laden by organizing and funding terrorism against legitimate governments and civilians.

[Dr Strangelove]

So the invasion of Afghanistan was some sort of gigantic bounty hunter operation? Holy Schmolly!

From now on for the safety of my community I'm paying my parking tickets!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ted Striker




YES, it is.

This is called spin to try and make up for the f up. Terrorist networks don't operate off of Western business organization charts but if you were to believe the White House, we've destroyed everyone from the Assitant to the Vice President of Al Queda and on down. We've killed the #3 guy in Iraq about 5 times already.

This "so and so leader of Al Queda division B" crap just doesn't fly anymore.

On top of that this, "maybe," "could have," "might have been," "was in the area," crap is also a complete sign of incompetence.

I'm going to go ask my boss for a raise, and tell him I "might have" saved the company "a bunch of" money but I have no way of confirming it.

I expect some phat loot from him.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapc...ike/index.html

Killing midlevel AQ types

Missing Zawahiri

Thinking that killing midlevel AQ types doesnt matter unless we get OBL or Zawahari

Thinking that fighting a war against a shadowy terror group in afghanistan and northwest Pakistan is like running a business

Ted Striker

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


Its relevant, because it means that only when a state is acting in an official capacity is it constrainted by international law.

According to whom - not the Charter, which doesnt say anything of the kind. Rather according to an ICJ interpretation of international law, in UK v Albania, which you keep citing.

I will have to read that - im curious not only for its basis, but for whether it really provides precedent for all these other situations as you say.

In any case, ISTM we have a pretty common sense understanding of the right to self defense, which was denied by a court - requiring states by treaty or UN charter amendment to undo the silly ruling of the court. Which, AFAIK, is being held up cause of a variety of marginally related disputes within the UN. Meanwhile I'll be damned if I think the US and its allies should be constrained in exercising their individual and collective rights to self defense just because it takes time for the UN system to get around a silly court decision.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Thinking that killing midlevel AQ types doesnt matter unless we get OBL or Zawahari

Uhh, that's not what I was "thinking," DONT GET IT TWISTED.


You should rephrase it like this:


Thinking that killing midlevel AQ types doesnt matter WHEN A BUNCH OF INNOCENT CHILDREN DIE.


Any very very small tactical gain by this operative's death (who by the way is having his impact overblown to make it sound like we made up for what happened to the innocents) is way overshadowed by the strategic damage the deaths of the innocents does to us.

You know plus that whole immoral thing about killing innocent women and children.

But hey, sh1t happens.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Btw, LoA is right on the bombing of Pakistan being against international law if there was no permission given. I'm not sure how you can argue self-defense for an Al Queda official in an ALLIED country! Now if Pakistan said ok, that'd be far different. But the way it was done probably violated international law technically... but not like Pakistan is taking us to court, so whatever.

Slate says you are wrong or at least their experts do. They're a noted left of center publication so please don't claim the are a Republican mouth piece.

http://www.slate.com/id/2134396/

[Patroklos]

We've killed the #3 guy in Iraq about 5 times already.

What do you think happens to #4 when #3 gets killed?

Interesting that the one claiming spinning and overblowing has yet to provide any sources. Well, not so much interesting as sad and expected.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Slate says you are wrong or at least their experts do. They're a noted left of center publication so please don't claim the are a Republican mouth piece.

what? slate says exactly what I say.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Slate says you are wrong or at least their experts do. They're a noted left of center publication so please don't claim the are a Republican mouth piece.

http://www.slate.com/id/2134396/

Let me guess. You never even READ your own article

Some legal scholars say the missile strikes in Pakistan are clearly against the law since Pakistan never attacked the United States. Others argue that the rules of war need to be updated, since terrorist groups, like states, can engage in major armed conflict.

"Rules of war need to be updated" = action is consistent with international law?

[Dinner]

It presented several scenerios including several ways which the bombing was legal. Please reread it. It was a balanced piece and presented the opposing view point though leaned heavily towards the US view point. Specifically it said the US likely had authorization from the Pakistani government though the Pakistanis won't publically say so for domestic reasons.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Please read your own link and then LOA and my posts. It said the bombing would be legal IF Pakistan invited them... said by us.

And NO, it didn't say the US "likely" had authorization. It said it MAY have had authorization. Why are you making up crap?

Here, I'll post the article, so you can't lie about what it says anymore:

http://www.slate.com/id/2134396/

A U.S. missile attack targeting al-Qaida's second-in-command killed 18 people in a Pakistani village early Friday morning. Pakistan's government lodged a "strong protest" with the American ambassador the next day; public protests followed. This is the fourth such assault in the last few months, and it comes just a few weeks after the Pakistanis formally protested a Jan. 7 helicopter attack that killed eight people. Are these cross-border strikes against the law?

It depends on whom you ask. The attacks raise two legal questions: First, was the decision to launch the airstrikes consistent with international law? Second, did the attacks themselves fulfill accepted standards for military conduct? International-relations scholars categorize these questions as relating to jus ad bellum (the "law to war") or jus in bello (the "law of war").

According to the principles of jus ad bellum, as codified in the U.N. charter, one nation can attack another only in self-defense. That doesn't mean you can launch a full-scale attack in response to a tiny incursion. In 1842, U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster laid out a doctrine of legitimate self-defense that scholars and government officials have cited again and again. Webster said you can only attack when the necessity is "instant" and "overwhelming." The jus ad bellum tradition also stipulates that a nation's act of self-defense should be proportional to the threat against it.

Some legal scholars say the missile strikes in Pakistan are clearly against the law since Pakistan never attacked the United States. Others argue that the rules of war need to be updated, since terrorist groups, like states, can engage in major armed conflict. By that logic, the recent attacks on Pakistan are similar to the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan; i.e., both were legitimate acts of self-defense against al-Qaida.

This dispute is irrelevant if the Pakistani government gave the United States permission to carry out the missile strikes. If so, that could make the attack legal whether or not the U.S. had a valid claim to self-defense. Few nations in Pakistan's position would admit that they had struck such a deal, so it's possible that the formal diplomatic protests are for show.

What about the way in which the attacks were conducted—the jus in bello question? Is killing 18 people in Pakistan against the law? The traditional rules of war say you can't target civilians, but that civilian deaths are acceptable as long as they are proportional to the overall military objective. (The U.S. military takes care to outline these legal issues in its manuals.) The latest missile strike was designed to kill al-Qaida's second-in-command, which is an important and valid military goal if you accept the jus ad bellum argument above.

Bonus Explainer: Do governments ever pay reparations for an illegal attack? Sometimes, but they rarely admit they were wrong. In 1988, the United States sent the Iranian government about $30 million after the USS Vincennes shot down a commercial airplane with 290 people aboard. In making the payment, U.S. officials denied wrongdoing and called the attack a "justifiable defensive action." (Iraq had paid the United States three times as much per casualty for a wrongful attack on a U.S. naval vessel the year before.)

[Dinner]

Lie my ass. Now listen to the audio version: http://media2.washingtonpost.com/med...18-Missile.mp3

It will solve your misunderstanding.