USA ASSASSINATIONS

DONT KNOW, DO YOU?

This thread before the week is out.

A non contentious thread at midnight. Sleep well, the battle starts tomorrow.

Well, considering the individual(s) are actually terrorists who’ve been directly responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent people, then yes, especially when they can use a ninja missile that results in little to no collateral damage.

A government that gives itself the legal right to assassinate people who basically just disagree with its policies, with little to no regard to collateral damage, not so much.

See: Putin, the Skripals, Alexander Polikarpov (the poor bloke poisoned with Polonium) and probably quite few more.

Why does this particularly single out the USA? By definition assassinations are illegal, there is no reason why it should be acceptable in any country. There are legal processes to deal with official state executions.

If you are talking about in the context of a war then that is a different matter as normal legal processes do not always apply.

A non contentious thread at midnight. Sleep well, the battle starts tomorrow

I CAN'T ****ING SLEEP IT'S TOO UNNATURALLY ****ING QUIET OUTSIDE!!!

Personally I think the al-qaeida leader got off lightly. He inspired others to carry out inhuman acts.

complicated innit.

But in this instance.... meh.

I think only the Saudis should retain this right.
They seem much more measured than those crazy yanks.

What I think about it probably isn't going to disturb the sleep of the person making the call about it.

The reporting around the world of killing of Zawahri has been pretty much a collective "well, that seemed like it was always going to be the outcome"

I think there needs to be consequences if you're going to commit or plan a terrorist act in another country, you can't just run back to a friendly country and live in peace like nothing has happened. Whether the consequence should be assassination, I'm not sure but realistically that's the only option without putting lives of your soldiers at risk to try and capture the fugitive. If someone's dying I'm glad it's the terrorist rather than a SF soldier

Ofc it's then a slippery slope of where the bar is set to determine if someone is 'bad' enough they deserve to die for their actions, or whether their actions should even be classed as terrorism. In this specific case though I'm fine with it.

It’s a yes from me 😉

I thought that this was going to be about police stop and search policy.

Well, considering the individual(s) are actually terrorists who’ve been directly responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent people, then yes, especially when they can use a ninja missile that results in little to no collateral damage.

'responsible' is the problematic word there. The moment Bin Laden was assassinated the US announced it describing him as the man 'responsible' for the 9/11 attacks, but within a couple of hours they rephrased it as him being the person who 'inspired' them. The problem the US had with Bin Laden was if they simply captured him and put him on trial there wasn't really anything you could prosecuted him with - you can't really make an accusation of 'being an inspiration' stick. And its the same for Zawahiri - he likely hasn't 'planned' anything.

Theres no 'direct responsibility'. The president of the US is 'commander in chief' and theres a chain of command linking them to any soldier in the field  - so theres 'direct responsibly' for any operation the US military undertakes all the way back to the president - lines of command, legal structures, nationhood, contracts of employment,pay cheques and pensions. The US likes to imagine that al-Qaeda has the same structure and chain of command - because its always boxing its own shadow. But all al-Qaeda is reality is just some people with ideas and  their 'followers' who are just people who like those ideas. Those people with the ideas don't know who those followers all are, or how many there are, or where they are, or what they might be planning to do or how or when they might do it - they just broadly approve of the notion that they are out there seeking to do something.

The US assassinates these lead figures because they don't know what else to do but feel impotent if they dont do something. Its self defeating because immediately as they do assassinate an al-Qaeda leader  they have to announce warnings that the US will become target of more attacks - attacks that of course their own actions have 'inspired'.

Do we think that it’s acceptable for the USA to assassinate anybody Putin

Would this be different?

And its the same for Zawahiri – he likely hasn’t ‘planned’ anything.

Nah, A cursory glance at his "CV" reveals him to be up to his neck in terrorism and violence. Whether it's right for democratic govts to involve themselves in assassinations is worthy of debate fo'shure. But that this guy was a horror who was happy to plan and carry out mass violence to forward his cause is pretty much beyond reasonable doubt.

Sat sunning himself on his balcony and got taken out by an Air to Chair missile.

If someone’s dying I’m glad it’s the terrorist rather than a SF soldier

I think Sinn Fein have knocked the soldiering on the head nowadays.

Stuff like this is always handy for approval ratings (certainly far better than raising the fact that Biden was vice president when the US effectively created ISIS via the Timber Sycamore program, much like they'd previously spawned Al-Qaeda from the mujahideen with their long time allies the wahabi loving Saudi Arabia and ahem, noble UK)...

https://twitter.com/LeftyCoaster/status/1554256769798459392

Let's just hope the nasty man was sufficiently conscious to feel the wrath of one of the rare drone operations that hits their target without killing and maiming civilians...

https://twitter.com/ZaidZamanHamid/status/1554708198103425024

Do we think that it’s acceptable for the USA to assassinate anybody Putin

Would this be different?

Yes - Putin hasn't directly inspired/planned the deaths of thousands of US citizens.

If Ukraine assassinated him, fair play.

It's a grey and murky area. No problem with this case personally.

Sat sunning himself on his balcony and got taken out by an Air to Chair missile.

Literally dicing with death.

Here's a fun little thought experiment...

If you just targeted top level arms manufacturers and those in whose interests it is to perpetuate war for personal gain, how many people would have to be assassinated to prevent any further war?

Given the Taliban wouldn’t have handed him over so that he could face justice it would probably have been better to have invaded Afghanistan so they could capture him and put him on trial.

Id be quite happy adding conspiracy theorists to the list of acceptable targets. The damage they've done to society over the last few years is a lot more serious than Al Queada. Shouldnt be too difficult to lock onto the tin foil hats.

Im going with 5 pages

Great man that Joe Biden, always liked him and the military industrial complex he represents 😄

how many people would have to be assassinated to prevent any further war?

Given the history of the human species; I reckon pretty much everyone.

If you just targeted top level arms manufacturers and those in whose interests it is to perpetuate war for personal gain, how many people would have to be assassinated to prevent any further war?

Manufacturing isnt really the cause - war creates the demand and I don't think there has been a day in history you could point to where a war wasnt being fought somewhere  - as much warfare is conducted with improvised weapons as multimillion dollar technology. IEDs, Machettes, bringing down airliners with Stanley knives. I've met people who were part of the uprising against Gadaffi when they were being fitting with prosthetic limbs in the UK - one of them had fought armed only with a rake.

Yes. At least he was killed by nice Biden and not nasty Trump.

Honestly, this doesn't even register on my give-a-shit-ometer.

And it has to be said. The likelihood of dying in conflict now is the lowest it's been for a long time

.

I think there needs to be consequences if you’re going to commit or plan a terrorist act in another country, you can’t just run back to a friendly country and live in peace like nothing has happened.

So you would obviously apply this to all public figures who conduct illegal acts that result in large numbers of deaths. This would include all of the individuals who were instrumental in the Iraq war.

You would accept the legitimacy of missile strikes on British cities to take out the likes of Blair, Campbell and co.

Don't ask me, I think it's acceptable to assassinate anyone who gives me a close pass.

Driving phone users? Yep them too. Bring it on 😁

Not a fan of these things but in this case it seems hard to argue with

Problem is that for the Taliban we’re the terrorists, so surely they would be just as justified to do the same thing in their eyes. And probably even more motivated to do so now

Point being, it’s a matter of perspective innit

I think it’s acceptable to assassinate anyone who gives me a close pass.

Driving phone users? Yep them too

Where do I sign up for one of these drones?

Given the history of the human species; I reckon pretty much everyone.

This dude was right all along

You would accept the legitimacy of missile strikes on British cities to take out the likes of Blair, Campbell and co.

Not like youll notice the extra potholes

I want one of those drones for my brother-in-law, he's in Australia but my laptop is pretty fast. I'd set to stun ovs.

Not like youll notice the extra potholes

Honestly if there was a chance that they'd be assassinated by some "other power" if they went around being a belligerent a-hole of a politician would probs be enough to make some of them think twice before launching ill advised conflicts.

So you would obviously apply this to all public figures who conduct illegal acts that result in large numbers of deaths. This would include all of the individuals who were instrumental in the Iraq war.

You would accept the legitimacy of missile strikes on British cities to take out the likes of Blair, Campbell and co.

If Iraq conducted an operation to take out Blair etc. I wouldn't have a problem with that...

Is the issue the USA and terrorists specifically or assassination in general? [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations ]MOSSAD[/url] seem fairly active in this arena, Russia has assassinated a number of people on UK soil (and probably elsewhere), Saudi Arabia killed Jamal Khashoggi and didn't we assassinate some IRA operatives in Gibraltar? I'm sure that there are numerous other examples.

Very much a human rather that US problem.

There's nothing innately human about assassinations, anyone here ever felt like doing one?

This thread before the week is out.

A week?! Is the forum software going to fall over for the first 6 days?

I'm happy that someone who'd happily kill me is now dead.

Putin? I wish someone would.

There’s nothing innately human about assassinations, anyone here ever felt like doing one?

It's a bit 'tit for tat' ish. Plot a terrorist attack & be prepared to get popped off at some point.
Could I do it? I'd like to think I could wander into Putins office & pop a cap in his ass*

*I heard that on some gangsta film or something.