Originally posted by PalynkaOn what basis was he declared an enemy of the State?
He was a declared enemy of the US, not a common criminal. If the US doesn't have the capacity to bring him to justice without casualties, I think it has the right to kill him.
War isn't pretty, but not all enemy soldiers can be tried in a court. This has nothing to do with civil liberties for freedom and justice.
If Iran declared George Bush an enemy of the State would they have the right to kill him?
Look, I'm not defending this guy, for all I know he was as horrible as everyone says he was. I don't have a clue and neither do the vast majority of people who are going to be applauding his death.
The idea of defending the right to go and fire missiles into a foreign country to kill someone you declare an enemy is beyond me.
Originally posted by WheelyThe right to go into someones Country and kidnap American and British people and pull out a Machete and cut off their heads and hold it up for everyone to see on video is beyond me. Where was their trial.
On what basis was he declared an enemy of the State?
If Iran declared George Bush an enemy of the State would they have the right to kill him?
Look, I'm not defending this guy, for all I know he was as horrible as everyone says he was. I don't have a clue and neither do the vast majority of people who are going to be applauding his death.
The idea o ...[text shortened]... go and fire missiles into a foreign country to kill someone you declare an enemy is beyond me.
Originally posted by WheelyI'm not defending the US either. I'm just saying international "law" (what is the best word in English for this?) and rights are a tricky thing. That's one of the reasons why I defend an International Criminal Court, to remove at least some criminal acts from the limbo of international "law".
On what basis was he declared an enemy of the State?
If Iran declared George Bush an enemy of the State would they have the right to kill him?
Look, I'm not defending this guy, for all I know he was as horrible as everyone says he was. I don't have a clue and neither do the vast majority of people who are going to be applauding his death.
The idea o ...[text shortened]... go and fire missiles into a foreign country to kill someone you declare an enemy is beyond me.
If Iran declared George Bush an enemy of the State would they have the right to kill him?
Yes, but that would be tantamount to a declaration of war to the US and expect them to act accordingly. If in a war one hasn't the right to kill the opposition's leader with a bomb attack, then one has not the right to wage a war.
I agree it is a murky territory, but I also don't think it's comparable to an execution of a restrained soldier/terrorist/criminal.
Originally posted by cashthetrashThank you! My point exactly!!
The right to go into someones Country and kidnap American and British people and pull out a Machete and cut off their heads and hold it up for everyone to see on video is beyond me. Where was their trial.
If you passionately believe this behavior is wrong and there is no excuse for it then you have to have the stomach to hold that point of view, no matter how tough it gets. If you do the same thing yourself, or similar, then you have lost your principles, your passion for what is right and even the argument.
It's easy to send soldiers out to die for your sense of freedom and justice but it's not as easy to risk death yourself for these principles is it.
Originally posted by jimslyp69I don't think the appellation "Islamo-Fascism" cuts the mustard anymore. "Islamo-Nazism" is a more accurate, since like the Nazis, the leaders of this new Mesopotamian Master Race want to kill everyone who is not like them or willing to practice Dhimmitude like they do in England, Germany and France.
Phrases such as islamo-nazism are propaganda to bolster America's political agenda.
Originally posted by PalynkaI understand what you're saying. However this guy is not a state. You can not declare a war a man, at least I hope you can't. What you CAN do is petition the country in which he is residing to arrest and extradite him.
I'm not defending the US either. I'm just saying international "law" (what is the best word in English for this?) and rights are a tricky thing. That's one of the reasons why I defend an International Criminal Court, to remove at least some criminal acts from the limbo of international "law".
[b]If Iran declared George Bush an enemy of the State would the ...[text shortened]... n't think it's comparable to an execution of a restrained soldier/terrorist/criminal.
This might sound like fantasy but if it is then international law is a fantasy and so are our principles.
Originally posted by WheelyBut it's quite different to execute a restrained prisoner and to kill a bunkered (or not) enemy in a bombing operation.
Thank you! My point exactly!!
If you passionately believe this behavior is wrong and there is no excuse for it then you have to have the stomach to hold that point of view, no matter how tough it gets. If you do the same thing yourself, or similar, then you have lost your principles, your passion for what is right and even the argument.
It's easy to s ...[text shortened]... of freedom and justice but it's not as easy to risk death yourself for these principles is it.
Originally posted by WheelyHe is not a state, but he was waging a guerilla warfare against the country where he is residing.
I understand what you're saying. However this guy is not a state. You can not declare a war a man, at least I hope you can't. What you CAN do is petition the country in which he is residing to arrest and extradite him.
This might sound like fantasy but if it is then international law is a fantasy and so are our principles.
This means extradiction is not possible and a bombing attack is justified if it is accepted by the country's government.
Would you agree that the Iraqi government had the legitimacy to order such a bombing?
Originally posted by PalynkaAlthough both are remarkably cowardly, there are some differences.
But it's quite different to execute a restrained prisoner and to kill a bunkered (or not) enemy in a bombing operation.
The terrorists have basically tortured some guy who may or may not have anything to do with their complaint.
Firing a missile at a house full of people, one of whom, might be the person you want to get strikes me as barbaric and callous in a completely different way.
However, my basic point is that it doesn't matter how dispicable or otherwise these people are, WE need to act like civilized people through thick and thin. It costs to be honerable but are we prepared to pay that price? If not, lets stop pretending we are.
Originally posted by PalynkaEven though I personally don't agree with the death penalty, I accept that the government of Iraq has the right to decide that for themselves. If they decide that this guy deserves a death sentence without trial and that a good way to carry out sentence is to fire a missile at a house he might be in, that's their choice.
He is not a state, but he was waging a guerilla warfare against the country where he is residing.
This means extradiction is not possible and a bombing attack is justified if it is accepted by the country's government.
Would you agree that the Iraqi government had the legitimacy to order such a bombing?
Personally I'd rather we didn't support that kind of justice.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterYou haven't really been paying attention to this thread have you?
Wheely, why don’t you ask Nick Berg if the stories about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are true?
It doesn't matter if the stories are true or not. However, if I spoke to someone who had direct experience of the man then I'd be unlikely to say I don't have a clue if the stories are true or not would I? Do you have any direct experience or is your impression something you got from an administration that was "at war" with the man?
Originally posted by WheelyBut it is not a death sentence! A soldier that fires upon an enemy soldier is not being jury and executioner, he's being a soldier.
Even though I personally don't agree with the death penalty, I accept that the government of Iraq has the right to decide that for themselves. If they decide that this guy deserves a death sentence without trial and that a good way to carry out sentence is to fire a missile at a house he might be in, that's their choice.
Personally I'd rather we didn't support that kind of justice.
I think we may well criticize both sides for their justifications of waging a war, but that doesn't mean that their acts of war are unjustified. I don't know how to explain this better, but in any war people are going to get killed.
Yes, this is hard to justify when civilians die. But I think that in this case we have clearly a military operation attacking the headquarters of the enemy side and killing their leader. Just because it is a guerilla warfare, doesn't mean the side of the state has to use the police and the courts.
1 edit
Originally posted by WheelyThey're not stories -- he was the self-professed leader of al-Qaida in Iraq and celebrated throughout the Muslim world as a Jihadi. His exploits are common knowledge:
You haven't really been paying attention to this thread have you?
It doesn't matter if the stories are true or not. However, if I spoke to someone who had direct experience of the man then I'd be unlikely to say I don't have a clue if the stories are true or not would I? Do you have any direct experience or is your impression something you got from an administration that was "at war" with the man?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm
In sum, he needed his ticket punched. God bless America and her men and women in uniform!
Originally posted by cashthetrashMmmm. Still don't get it. I said 'Phrases such as islamo-nazism are propaganda to bolster America's political agenda'.
Go back and read your own post and you will find out who "they" are.🙄
Hint: islamo-nazism
Not my choise of words. But I see little difference at this point.
I'm still none the wiser.