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

[kentonio]

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.

It was widely accepted at the time as a total moral contradiction, but as Germany and Japan had basically forced total war on the world, no-one was in a hurry to prosecute all the allied leaders for their responses. To claim that that makes targeting civilians legitimate however is utterly wrong however, as the conventions signed afterwards show.

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

legitimate: conforming to the law or to rules

In which case per the Geneva Convention the intentional targetting of civilians is by definition illegitimate.

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

Please link to them.

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.

I look forward to your explanation of what existential threat America has faced since the end of the Cold War.

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.

No, that's the extent of a lazy persons power. There is absolutely nothing preventing you engaging with the process of candidate selection and helping build support for candidates who oppose these things. The democractic process is more than ticking a box.

[Sava]

It was widely accepted at the time as a total moral contradiction, but as Germany and Japan had basically forced total war on the world, no-one was in a hurry to prosecute all the allied leaders for their responses. To claim that that makes targeting civilians legitimate however is utterly wrong however, as the conventions signed afterwards show.

Again. You are ignoring the meaning of the word "legitimate". If you refuse to accept the meaning of words, I can't have a discussion with you.

Please link to them.

Link to what? Nuclear weapons exist. All major powers have rules regarding their use. Please link to the law that makes nuclear weapons illegal. You are the one claiming they are illegitimate... and thus, illegal. Show me. Prove it.

I look forward to your explanation of what existential threat America has faced since the end of the Cold War.

Why? That has nothing to do with my previous remarks. I was speaking generally. Strawmen examples don't apply. But nice try.

No, that's the extent of a lazy persons power. There is absolutely nothing preventing you engaging with the process of candidate selection and helping build support for candidates who oppose these things. The democractic process is more than ticking a box.

No. The average citizen's political power is restricted to voting. Politics in America is a specific industry. Dedicated professional work in this industry. I've worked on political campaigns. I know how the sausage is made.

The average citizen, for the purpose of this discussion, is most anyone who does not work at a job in politics. People working full time in other industries aren't expected to then dedicate all their free time to volunteering for political campaigns. By definition, such activities are not average.

You are having a real problem understanding what words mean today.

[C0ckney]

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).

a lot of israel's assassinations have targeted arab nuclear scientists, who, as far as i know, have not killed a single israeli.

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.

not really. american and israeli assassinations are done to further their geopolitical goals. nothing more, nothing less. this 'preventing attacks against civilians' bull**** is just a smokescreen.

[C0ckney]

there is something very orwelian about attacking civilians in order to prevent attacks on civilians.

here's a valuable military target.

The last time I saw my mother, Momina Bibi, was the evening before Eid al-Adha. She was preparing my children's clothing and showing them how to make sewaiyaan, a traditional sweet made of milk. She always used to say: the joy of Eid is the excitement it brings to the children.

Last year, she never had that experience. The next day, 24 October 2012, she was dead, killed by a US drone that rained fire down upon her as she tended her garden.

Nobody has ever told me why my mother was targeted that day. The media reported that the attack was on a car, but there is no road alongside my mother's house. Several reported the attack was on a house. But the missiles hit a nearby field, not a house. All reported that five militants were killed. Only one person was killed – a 67-year-old grandmother of nine.

[Ben Kenobi]

not really. american and israeli assassinations are done to further their geopolitical goals. nothing more, nothing less. this 'preventing attacks against civilians' bull**** is just a smokescreen.

The channel is wider than Israel.

[Sava]

not really. american and israeli assassinations are done to further their geopolitical goals. nothing more, nothing less. this 'preventing attacks against civilians' bull**** is just a smokescreen.

Yes. But one of American (and Israeli and everyone else) geopolitical goals is preventing large scale attacks on civilians.

You are absofuckinglutely retarded if you believe preventing domestic attacks isn't a large motivation behind these policies.

It's one thing to make the argument that they are counter-productive. It's another to completely ignore the reality of the situation.

So what are their "geo-political" goals. Huh? Oil? The Bilderberger group? The Illuminati?

Now you are getting into conspiracy theory territory. One of the chief complains against drone strikes is that there isn't, perhaps, any hard evidence linking these individuals to any imminent attacks on western targets.

But speaking of evidence, there's even less evidence about the mysterious "geo-political motives" you are talking about.

[Sava]

there is something very orwelian about attacking civilians in order to prevent attacks on civilians.

here's a valuable military target.

This is bull****. Nobody has argued that person was a military target. If anything, it goes to show that intelligence was wrong.

Stop being dishonest for emotional effect. I'm opposed to US drone policy, but your tactics turn me away from that side of this debate.

[kentonio]

Again. You are ignoring the meaning of the word "legitimate". If you refuse to accept the meaning of words, I can't have a discussion with you.

How convenient, especially considering you spelt out the exact definition of legitimate which immediately undermined your argument. America signed the Geneva Convention which prevents the deliberate targeting of civilians. Please explain how you still consider this behavior legitimate.

Link to what? Nuclear weapons exist. All major powers have rules regarding their use. Please link to the law that makes nuclear weapons illegal. You are the one claiming they are illegitimate... and thus, illegal. Show me. Prove it.

You'll be wanting Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977.

Why? That has nothing to do with my previous remarks. I was speaking generally. Strawmen examples don't apply. But nice try.

It wasn't a strawman. This started as a debate on the use of drones and the civilian casualties they keep causing. Given that America is not facing an existential threat from terrorism, you can't really use a justification of unrestrained might.

No. The average citizen's political power is restricted to voting. Politics in America is a specific industry. Dedicated professional work in this industry. I've worked on political campaigns. I know how the sausage is made.

The average citizen, for the purpose of this discussion, is most anyone who does not work at a job in politics. People working full time in other industries aren't expected to then dedicate all their free time to volunteering for political campaigns. By definition, such activities are not average.

You are having a real problem understanding what words mean today.

No, I'm arguing that just because 99% of people can't be arsed to do these things, doesn't mean that those same people don't have the power to do them if they chose.

[C0ckney]

Yes. But one of American (and Israeli and everyone else) geopolitical goals is preventing large scale attacks on civilians.

You are absofuckinglutely retarded if you believe preventing domestic attacks isn't a large motivation behind these policies.

It's one thing to make the argument that they are counter-productive. It's another to completely ignore the reality of the situation.

So what are their "geo-political" goals. Huh? Oil? The Bilderberger group? The Illuminati?

Now you are getting into conspiracy theory territory. One of the chief complains against drone strikes is that there isn't, perhaps, any hard evidence linking these individuals to any imminent attacks on western targets.

But speaking of evidence, there's even less evidence about the mysterious "geo-political motives" you are talking about.

when you respond to me, you should try responding to what i say, instead of building silly strawmen (more fun, i know).

[C0ckney]

This is bull****. Nobody has argued that person was a military target. If anything, it goes to show that intelligence was wrong.

Stop being dishonest for emotional effect. I'm opposed to US drone policy, but your tactics turn me away from that side of this debate.

stop being stupid for no effect. did you not read reg's post?

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

Since ****ing when?!

[Sava]

when you respond to me, you should try responding to what i say, instead of building silly strawmen (more fun, i know).

You were so vague with your "geo political motives", I didn't know what to think. Maybe you should be more specific in the future.

[Sava]

Since ****ing when?!

Point taken. But I was referring to our highest ideals... not to what actually happens in reality.

[regexcellent]

not really. american and israeli assassinations are done to further their geopolitical goals. nothing more, nothing less.

everything is the same. everything is relative. there is no good or evil. welcome to the postmodern world. everything you've ever been told is a lie. my name is c0ckney and i don't know how to use my shift key.

[Sava]

everything is relative. there is no good or evil. welcome to the postmodern world.

It's always been like this. It's called reality. The only difference is that we tend to have a better understanding of it now.