Oops, turns out Arafat probably was murdered after all..

[C0ckney]

I don't quite understand the point you are making... besides the fact that discussing this topic with you is pointless. All internet discussion is pointless. I realize that.

i just found it amusing to see you criticising people for using the word murder incorrectly and then starting to cry that people were only interested in semantics, when it turned out that the person who doesn't know what murder means, is you.

[Sava]

i just found it amusing to see you criticising people for using the word murder incorrectly and then starting to cry that people were only interested in semantics, when it turned out that the person who doesn't know what murder means, is you.

The whole "malice intent" thing just doesn't apply in counter-terror operations... or even assassinations. That's why murder is different from killing. Again, learn what words mean.

[Sava]

I didn't say stops war, I said 'stop the excesses of the two world wars from happening again'. In reality even that is wildly optimistic, but it certainly disproves your comment about civilians targets having been legitimized by the wars.

Sorry. I missed the part where Allied leaders and generals were put on trial for war crimes after WW2. Legitimacy refers to the law. The law is only relevant if it is enforced. So yes, the targeting of civilian populations was legitimate precisely because nobody held Allied leadership accountable after the war for doing it.

The targeting of civilians is still legitimate because both the US and Russia still have enormous nuclear stockpiles capable of wiping out life on Earth. It will cease to be legitimate when massive nuclear strikes aren't the primary military response to war between the major powers.

Ok, so if morality and legality are irrelevant, what do we have left? Might is right?

It's not about right or wrong. Might exists. You can call it wrong all you want. But doing so doesn't stop it from happening.

Of course not, you're not one of the people whose family members are getting their limbs blown off by it. Of course if it leads to another 9/11 you might start wishing you'd spoken up earlier.

No. I'm not. But that's irrelevant. Changing the policy isn't within my power. It doesn't matter if I cry myself to sleep every night over such things or if I experience a complete indifference to their suffering.

If I cried about every little thing that happens in the world, I wouldn't be able to function.

Put it up to a vote, and I'll vote against US drone policy. But that's not how the government works. So sorry.

[PLATO]

MikeH: The Boston example is a very poor one. You are comparing an area with stable government and adequate and reasonably non-corrupt enforcement to an area where there is little government, corrupt officials (where any even exist), and a sympathetic populace. Not a good comparison at all. If the tribal regions of Pakistan were stable like Boston is, then I would imagine that rounding up terrorist would go similarly to how it happened in Boston. The simple fact is that there is no alternative other than leaving terrorist, who we know who and where they are, alone. Maybe that is an alternative, but it is the only one I see and I personally disagree with it.

Imran: State's Rights may be a cover for racism for some, but the general idea is not racist. I believe in government being as close to the governed as possible. That gives more accountability and more access. That is why I am a State's Rights supporter and it has nothing to do with racism.

Sava:

[Sava]

an area with stable government

Well. This is Boston we're talking about. Let's not go too far.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran: State's Rights may be a cover for racism for some, but the general idea is not racist. I believe in government being as close to the governed as possible. That gives more accountability and more access. That is why I am a State's Rights supporter and it has nothing to do with racism.

I think you missed my point. I believe in national sovereignty, for one.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So Sava, you'd be happy if people just called drone strike collateral damage as "manslaughter" instead?

Of course, in the law, you can get charged for murder if you actions had so high the forseeable result of causing death that it basically was intentional (for example if you shoot a random gun in a mall - you may not intended for anyone to get hit, but if someone did and died, that's murder not manslaughter).

[Sava]

PLATO: I love you man... but what's with the States' rights thing? The whole notion of state sovereignty was thoroughly rejected with the Articles of Confederation. That's battle has been fought. It's not making a comeback. For your own sanity, I would just advise you to deal with the fact that the federal government exists.

It's certainly your right to cream your pants over a rejected 18th century political system. And I believe you when you say its not about racism. There are certainly tons of racists out there who present their arguments in other forms.

I just... I don't understand. There's no coherent argument that can be made in favor of States' rights. That kind of system didn't work. Above all else, it doesn't work economically. Individual state currencies. State militias (as opposed to the US army). None of it makes any sense.

[kentonio]

Sorry. I missed the part where Allied leaders and generals were put on trial for war crimes after WW2. Legitimacy refers to the law. The law is only relevant if it is enforced. So yes, the targeting of civilian populations was legitimate precisely because nobody held Allied leadership accountable after the war for doing it.

It was a very active debate at the time, and numerous Germans got away with acts that would otherwise have been considered war crimes, because they managed to successfully argue that the allies had carried out comparable acts. The conventions and treaties that came afterwards were an attempt to provide a clear message that those actions are never justifiable. Your country was of course a signatory of many of those conventions and treaties.

The targeting of civilians is still legitimate because both the US and Russia still have enormous nuclear stockpiles capable of wiping out life on Earth. It will cease to be legitimate when massive nuclear strikes aren't the primary military response to war between the major powers.

Nuclear war is not a 'legitimate' response. The nuclear stockpiles are a pragmatic reminder that there must be a no-win outcome to mass extermination.

It's not about right or wrong. Might exists. You can call it wrong all you want. But doing so doesn't stop it from happening.

No it doesn't, but it also doesn't justify the use of unrestrained might just because a country wants to flex it's muscles against it's perceived enemies.

No. I'm not. But that's irrelevant. Changing the policy isn't within my power. It doesn't matter if I cry myself to sleep every night over such things or if I experience a complete indifference to their suffering.

If I cried about every little thing that happens in the world, I wouldn't be able to function.

Put it up to a vote, and I'll vote against US drone policy. But that's not how the government works. So sorry.

You have the power to play a part in shaping the political debate and voting for candidates that share your opinions. That is EXACTLY how government is supposed to work. If you chose not to do so then that is completely up to you, but please don't try and claim that the government you elect is somehow not your responsibility.

[Sava]

So Sava, you'd be happy if people just called drone strike collateral damage as "manslaughter" instead?

No. It's not so much the legal terminology that upsets me. It's the whole use of "oh it's murder!". It's painfully obvious to everyone that the issue involves people being blown to bits. Nobody is under any illusion that this is any but that. Even the most hawkish supporters are aware of this, despite the existence of such sanitizing military language as "targets" rather than "victims".

As someone who is generally opposed to drone policy, I think I'm just trying to get people to embrace more effective and rational arguments, rather than the whole "REDRUM REDRUM" tactic.

Make a logical argument. The emotional argument is generally a wash. For every person that screams bloody murder, there's someone who is going to play the 9-11 card. There's gore and bodies and death on both sides.

It's a stupid argument and people should feel bad for making it.

[Sava]

It was a very active debate at the time, and numerous Germans got away with acts that would otherwise have been considered war crimes, because they managed to successfully argue that the allies had carried out comparable acts. The conventions and treaties that came afterwards were an attempt to provide a clear message that those actions are never justifiable. Your country was of course a signatory of many of those conventions and treaties.

Active debate shmactive debate. Nobody went to jail. You seem to want it both ways. You want to say aerial bombardment wasn't legitimate... but then all effective real world mechanisms involving legitimacy weren't used to enforce the idea.

That's probably the worst possible outcome. It's one thing to say something is a war crime and then prosecute it as such. It's another thing to say it is, but then not enforce it. The morals and laws are then worth even less than they normally would... which is less than the paper they are written on.

Nuclear war is not a 'legitimate' response. The nuclear stockpiles are a pragmatic reminder that there must be a no-win outcome to mass extermination.

Do you know what the word legitimate means? Because I don't think you do.

legitimate: conforming to the law or to rules

There are laws and rules permitting the use of nuclear weapons. By definition, it is legitimate.

No it doesn't, but it also doesn't justify the use of unrestrained might just because a country wants to flex it's muscles against it's perceived enemies.

The only thing I'm "justifying" is that countries always have and always will use their unrestrained might when threatened with existential threats. And by justify, I'm just pointing out how states behave in the real world. You can pretend that they don't behave this way all you want. That doesn't change anything.

You have the power to play a part in shaping the political debate and voting for candidates that share your opinions. That is EXACTLY how government is supposed to work. If you chose not to do so then that is completely up to you, but please don't try and claim that the government you elect is somehow not your responsibility.

Responsibility is just a fancy word for blame. You want to blame me now for the US drone policy? Do you not understand how representative government works?

My level of responsibility is precisely equal to the amount of power or control I have in the process. Let's take the last Presidential election. I could vote for Obama. I could vote for Romney. I could have voted for some irrelevant third party twatburger. If we translate those three options into a referendum on US drone policy, here are my three choices:

Vote YES on drone strikes.
Vote YES on drone strikes.
Throw my vote away.

That is the extent of the average person's "power" in the American political process.

[notyoueither]

Drone strikes haven't been confined to war zones.

But they are generally used in areas where the sovereign powers that be either can't or won't enforce laws and where people who express a desire to blow up parts of our cities live and work openly, no?

[Sava]

Sovereignty is just a fancy word for "I'm in charge and can kill you". We, in the civilized world, only tend to accept sovereignty as a result of democratic processes respecting the rule of law.

It's easy to sit in your chair and defend the national sovereignty of some third world wasteland. Perspective does matter. If some tribal leaders in Afghanistan are putting you to death because you violated some arbitrary rule, their right to "sovereignty" might not be so important.

Yeah. It sucks that some innocent kid gets blown up in a drone strike... especially when the intended target might not even be a threat. We probably shouldn't be over there doing that.

But don't give me this high and mighty crap about sovereignty. Get off the ****ing cross.

(this isn't directed at anybody in particular... so don't take personal offense if it seems like I'm addressing you)

The same goes for Arafat. He was undoubtedly complicit in the murder of countless innocent people. And no, he wasn't arrested in put on trial for that. In a perfect world, he would have been. But I'm not going to cry just because he may have been killed by someone who was breaking the rules.

And AFAIK, he was poisoned in a particular jurisdiction where our respective countries' laws don't apply. So in that sense, no... it wasn't murder.

The same people that would argue for following the law about putting him on trial for murder are conveniently ignorant of the reality that his "murderer" could also never be convicted.

[C0ckney]

The whole "malice intent" thing just doesn't apply in counter-terror operations... or even assassinations. That's why murder is different from killing. Again, learn what words mean.

i think firing a missile at someone qualifies as an intention to kill.

also, your distinction between assassination and murder is meaningless.

[regexcellent]

The difference between the Boston bombing and an assassination is that the bombing was an indiscriminate act of terror intended to, well, terrorize the civilian population, whereas Israel's assassinations are retribution for direct acts of violence against its civilian populace (for instance, killing the athletes in Munich).

Israeli (and American) assassinations have been for the purpose of discouraging and preventing terrorist attacks against civilians. The targets are military targets of military value, as opposed to airliners or olympic athletes or school buses full of kids.

Every now and then civilians are accidentally killed by these attacks. Key word accidentally. Civilians deaths at the hands of terrorists (including the Boston bombers, I guess we'll call them terrorists) are deliberate.