Bomber Kills U.S. Diplomat in Pakistan

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid


Someone finally KO'd him

Jeez, so now "the greatest" is running a cigarette stand in Karachi. Those boxers never seem to handle their money well.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Whoha


Thats good because we aren't targeting them.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MrFun
Some of us shrug off Iraqi civilian casualties of aerial bombings as "gee, that too bad that that happens, but that the consequence of war" and then when American civilian officials are killed in time of war, it's a whole different story.

I say that both types of instances are tragic.

We kill Iraqi civilians while trying to kill the insurgents who are making life hell for IRaqi civilians. Who were the Pakistani jihadis trying to kill, that they accidentally killed a US diplomat?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


We kill Iraqi civilians while trying to kill the insurgents who are making life hell for IRaqi civilians. Who were the Pakistani jihadis trying to kill, that they accidentally killed a US diplomat?

Good point, LoTM. But the fact that some people see the death of Iraqi civilians as less tragic as "collateral damage" seems to smack of hypocrisy when some people only see tragedy when it affects people, who, in their eyes, are the only ones who matter.

[Whoha]

It would be great if the AL-Qaeda types would just stand out in the open, so we could kill them without inflicting such suffering, but its not to be MrFun.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Whoha
Diplomats are legitimate targets?

I'll take the flaming.

In war, yes.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wezil


I'll take the flaming.

In war, yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity

[Elok]

Er, you do realize that they can't actually bribe the enemy to their side as he's approaching to kill them (like in Civ2), right? IRL their military use is restricted to "parley" and "human shield."

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Wezil


I'll take the flaming.

In war, yes.

no flaming, I understand that those who attacked see him as an infidel, and for them there could be no greater justification for killing.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
His name was David Foy.

After serving his country for 21 years in the US Navy, he retired from the military, but wasn't done with public service. Instead, he joined the US Foreign Service under Colin Powell's Diplomatic Readiness Inititiative, which brought scores of older, more experienced people into the diplomatic corps.

Karachi was his second assignment. He left behind a wife and family, who were in the US at the time because Karachi is one of an increasing number of posts to which diplomats are not allowed to bring their families.

Thanks for naming him

Almost all reports I see just say US diplomat.

[Wezil]

LOTM - Leave Wiko aside (I'm not a fan).

Diplo's are representatives of the government one is at war with. Unless under some agreed to truce they are fair game. As are government officials and armed forces (police and army).

Let us remember the civ model - "Expel or Attack"

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity

Diplomatic immunity applies between two powers in a time of peace. When war is declared the diplomats of the enemy powers are generally given a certain amount of time to leave your territory.

There's nothing in diplomatic immunity which would protect, say, the Canadian ambassador to the US from being killed in Washington DC by a German in 1943.

Whether or not diplomats are legitimate targets in such a situation is the same question as whether or not other civilian members of the government are legitimate targets.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Elok
Er, you do realize that they can't actually bribe the enemy to their side as he's approaching to kill them (like in Civ2), right? IRL their military use is restricted to "parley" and "human shield."

And if the diplomat is in possession of some vital military information which he is going to pass on to his opposite number in Pakistan to help fight whatever group did this? From their point of view, killing him then becomes an exercise in disrupting military communications.

It's not an easy question as to whether or not we should consider civilian agents of enemy governments legitimate targets...

[KrazyHorse]

I remember the last thread like this that Sloww posted was about the Woodruff incident.

The article he quoted stated quite clearly that Woodruff and his cameraman had been riding in a US Army armoured vehicle at the time of the attack which injured them.



I mean, don't get me wrong; I hate terrorism as much as the next guy, but you start to wonder when all you're complaining about are those attacks which fall in a grey area...

[Elok]

Why the devil would the army need to use a diplomat as a go-between? Pakistan has telecommunications systems, and I don't think the terrorists have the ability to reliably monitor all of them. If they had the equipment, contacts, and skills to do that, they could probably also use better gear than rusting Soviet-surplus Kalashnikovs and IEDs.

This isn't like the Cold War; we don't have to infiltrate whole enemy cities. Even on their own turf, the enemy are the ones doing the hiding and sneaking. I don't think we'd use diplomats to try and blend into AQ sleeper cells or whatever. Even Bush isn't that stupid...or at least, I don't think so.