Attacks in Paris Stadium, concert hall

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote: " Unless one has a romantic notion of war and killing, hacking your enemy to death with a machete in hand to hand combat is no better (or worse) than dispatching a drone to do so from an office somewhere in Nevada."

There's probably a reason why videogames of war are popular and personally conducted machete hacking isn't. At the top of that Ferris wheel they all look like ants, and they're a million miles away. Of course, if you're a real bastard you'll prefer the machete.

But its a lot easier to view things as an abstract calculus when acting at a distance by remote control. You tell yourself (or are told and accept it) that by killing those terrorists, you're saving many more lives -- potentially thousands, in a case like 9/11 -- than the comparatively small number of innocent bystanders you might also kill in the process of getting your man.

But morality isn't a mathematical equation. If someone can save millions by conducting cruel medical experiments on a few thousand, does that justify it? Isn't morality everywhere and always a matter of individual rights, from which the abstraction of group rights is derived, rather than the other way around?

2 Replies

@puzzledperson,

Quote:

But morality isn't a mathematical equation.

Suppose I kill a guy. In cold blood. For no sufficient reason, although I kinda felt like I had one at the time. Now I regret doing it, OK?

Now let's say this guy's brother is coming to kill me, for good reason (i.e., because I killed his brother). He's 200 yards away from me, coming fast.

Should I just let him kill me, because I deserve it? Would that be the "right" thing to do?

I wouldn't even ask that question. I would just try to smoke his ass before he did it to me, if I could.

That's "morality."

1 Reply

@puzzledperson,

P.S. Ground warfare can also be violently indiscriminate, particularly in a day where stand-off weaponry and indirect fire, such as artillery and infantry air support, are used in urban settings. When armies meet on a battlefield, it's a lot easier to determine "legitimate targets", even though those targets might theoretically be misled youths trying to avoid jail or a firing squad or public shame as a deserter.

Still, if you're aiming a rifle at an individual combatant, there is a restricted intent to your action, and very possibly a restricted effect, that isn't as easy to match by bombing unless your targets are conventional forces on a battlefield.

If you recognize all this, you might be more likely to seek out alternative solutions to war, whether that entails diplomacy, economic sanctions or isolation, or the carrot instead of the stick. Or perhaps, early and limited military intervention, including assassination of those who explicitly beat the drum of aggressive warfare. If the military terms of Versailles had been enforced, despite the supposedly "humiliating" nature of them, perhaps a spot of bother could have been avoided. Of course, the United States never ratified the Versailles Treaty. And guess who sold imperial Japan most of their oil in the lead-up until the rather late date of July 26, 1941?

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-freezes-japanese-assets

1 Reply

@layman,

Far too vague to evaluate. You "kinda felt" like you had sufficient reason to commit homicide? What does that mean, concretely? Did you act reasonably, even if subsequent revelations demonstrated error due to conditions you couldn't have known at the time? Or were you precipitate? Is the guy's brother out for justice, or simply to revenge a filial obligation, regardless of morality? Was any attempt made by any of the parties to communicate, establish facts, or defer justice to a forum where this might be done with greater accuracy, such as (potentially) a courtroom? Could you run away instead of smoking his ass or letting him smoke yours? Could you simply threaten force to create a stand-off until the police can be summoned or until your opponent is willing to stop long enough to listen?

1 Reply

@puzzledperson,

Quote:

And guess who sold imperial Japan most of their oil in the lead-up until the rather late date of July 26, 1941?... whether that entails diplomacy, economic sanctions or isolation, or the carrot instead of the stick.

Yeah, how'd that work out for us? Like you're gunna deter some sneaky, filthy, inscrutable Jap?

I don't think so! Homey don't play dat.

0 Replies

@puzzledperson,

Quote:

What does that mean, concretely?

Well, basically it means the mofo pissed me clean OFF, eh?

Quote:

Was any attempt made by any of the parties to communicate,

I done told ya, PP. The bastard is 200 yards away, comin fast.

Quote:

Could you simply threaten force to create a stand-off until the police can be summoned or until your opponent is willing to stop long enough to listen?

Maybe. Maybe not. Too risky to try.

0 Replies

@puzzledperson,

Quote:

How many Americans who were told by the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein was a co-conspirator in the 9/11 attacks, and who considered Arabs in general to be anti-American fanatics of a different (and wrong!) religion, were particularly finicky about taking names and kicking ass in the land of the towelheads/sand-niggers?

I think 1,873,028, or maybe 1,873,029....

Why does that matter?

1 Reply

@puzzledperson,

puzzledperson wrote:

oralloy wrote:
After we destroy Islamic State, we will be the military in charge of the Sunni areas of Iraq and Syria.

Not even remotely. ISIS controls areas of northern and eastern Syria. Al Qaeda and its hardline allies in Jaish al Fatah control the northwest and substantial chunks of the center of Syria. Getting rid of ISIS does not mean getting rid of radical Islamic militants and terrorists in Syria nor their subversion of Sunni Iraq.

I expect that we'll be happy to uproot the local branch of al-Qa'ida at the same time that we uproot Islamic State.

puzzledperson wrote:

oralloy wrote:
I expect that their government will not be composed of out of control nutcases that cut off everyone's heads and conduct terrorist attacks against the Western world.

That expectation seems unwarranted. Saudi Arabia cuts off more heads than ISIS, and 15 of the 19 al Qaeda highjackers behind the far more professional and destructive 9/11 attacks came from Saudi Arabia. When the U.S. led coalition invaded Iraq in 2003, Saudi Arabia sent more foreign suicide bombers than any other country. Saudi Arabia is the force behind the worldwide dissemination of the Wahhabi Muslim ideology that was once regarded as a radical fringe movement but which now dominates Islamic thought in many parts of the world. Saudi Arabia supports al Nusra, the al Qaeda affiliated rebel group that rivals ISIS for domination in Syria.

At least ISIS permits the practice of Christianity in its "caliphate" provided the jizya is paid (which also exempts Christians from military draft). Just try to open a Christian church in Saudi Arabia, no matter how discreet, and see how long you avoid jail or worse. See how many lashes in the public square you get for criticizing the government. Raif Badawi, the blogger behind the website Saudi Arabia Liberals was only sentenced to 1,000. Compare this to the "cushy rehab center" where it sends terrorists. I'm not making this up.

I believe that Sunni Muslims can and will form moderate governments.

puzzledperson wrote:

You may imagine that what you call "the universal right of self protection" gives western governments the legal right to invade Iraq and Syria against the wishes of their sovereign governments but who will agree with you?

Every person with a minimal understanding of international law.

puzzledperson wrote:

Certainly not the United Nations

The UN enshrines the universal right to self defense in their charter.

puzzledperson wrote:

or even the U.S. government despite the bluster of members of Congress who are so cowardly that they refuse to bring an authorizing resolution supporting the use of military force in Syria, in case the shite hits the fan and public opinion turns against them.

I'm pretty sure that the US government agrees that the US government has the right to defend itself when attacked.

1 Reply

@puzzledperson,

puzzledperson wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Dronestrikes may not completely eliminate every bit of a militant group, but they put a serious dent in them.

Really?

Yes.

puzzledperson wrote:

Does al Qaeda have more worldwide members (including affiliate groups like al Nusra in Syria) before we started drone strikes, or now?

No idea. But the groups that have been subject to intense dronestrikes have been gutted.

puzzledperson wrote:

How about ISIS?

Their numbers are holding about the same so far, but they will be subjected to much more intensive attacks in the near future.

puzzledperson wrote:

Could it be that drone strikes are actually a powerful recruitment tool for jihadist organizations?

I doubt it. Anyone kooky enough to want to attack us over dronestrikes is kooky enough to attack us for any other silly reason as well.

But even if our dronestrikes are a potent recruitment tool, the answer is still to keep dronestriking until they're all dead. They'll run out of recruits before we run out of missiles.

puzzledperson wrote:

Could it be that the United States is shooting itself in the foot simply in order to appear to its citizens that it's doing something?

No. Self defense is never a bad option when you are attacked.

puzzledperson wrote:

oralloy wrote:
We have declared war against al-Qa'ida and all of their allies.

Really?

Yes.

puzzledperson wrote:

Is that why we've largely left them alone in Syria (al Nusra), leaving them to the Russians?

Is there evidence that Russia has damaged al-Nusra?

In any case, our focus is currently on Islamic State because we currently find Islamic State more alarming.

puzzledperson wrote:

Why haven't we sanctioned Saudi Arabia and Turkey for providing material support to this terrorist organization?

"Turkey and Saudi Arabia are actively supporting a hardline coalition of Islamist rebels against Bashar al-Assad’s regime that includes al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, in a move that has alarmed Western governments.

"The two countries are focusing their backing for the Syrian rebels on the combined Jaish al-Fatah, or the Army of Conquest, a command structure for jihadist groups in Syria that includes Jabhat al-Nusra, an extremist rival to Isis which shares many of its aspirations for a fundamentalist caliphate."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-crisis-turkey-and-saudi-arabia-shock-western-countries-by-supporting-anti-assad-jihadists-10242747.html

Probably because we've calculated that it would do our cause more harm than good.

2 Replies

@puzzledperson,

puzzledperson wrote:

That isn't what I was suggesting. I was simply pointing out that if the well educated, sophisticated, modern population of "the greatest country on earth" reacts to Pearl Harbor with popular cries to bomb the Japs back to the Stone Age, why expect third world Muslims to react any more rationally or morally to the odious "them"?

Keep in mind that WWII Americans were reacting to an unprovoked and horrendous attack that was perpetrated against Americans.

The Muslims of today are reacting to an unprovoked and horrendous attack that was perpetrated by Muslims.

In other words, in your comparison to Pearl Harbor, the Muslims should be playing the role of WWII Japanese.

America's reaction "bomb them to the stone age" is entirely rational and moral, both in the case of WWII and in the case of today's dronestrikes.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

puzzledperson wrote:
oralloy wrote:
We have declared war against al-Qa'ida and all of their allies.

Really?

Yes.

When did that happen?
According to all I could find, the last declaration of war by the USA was in 1942 (Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary).

IF, if you refer to conflicts governed by congressional legislation authorizing force but not declaring war, the last have been September 18, 2001 (terrorists) and October 16, 2002 (Iraq).

Could you please give the source of your information which is differnet to mine (by the Library of Congress)?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

IF, if you refer to conflicts governed by congressional legislation authorizing force but not declaring war, the last have been September 18, 2001 (terrorists) and October 16, 2002 (Iraq).

I consider these to be declarations of war, and was referring specifically to the September 18, 2001 legislation.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I consider these to be declarations of war, and was referring specifically to the September 18, 2001 legislation.

No matter what you consider: they definitely aren't declarations of war. "This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force''." (Source: Public Law 107-40, 107th Congress)

Besides that the 2001 authorisation clearly refers to "the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. <<NOTE: Sept. 18, 2001". (source as above)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

No matter what you consider: they definitely aren't declarations of war.

Over all these years I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why they do not count as declarations of war.

But, if they aren't declarations of war, does that mean we are not bound by the laws of war in our conduct? Perhaps torture wasn't illegal after all.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Besides that the 2001 authorisation clearly refers to "the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Yes. That would be al-Qa'ida.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

y. He also shows the cowardly Republicans for the spineless losers they really are.

If one or more of those refugees does end up doing mass killings of innocent men women and children of France this brave man should be taken out of his office and shot at the nearest wall.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Perhaps torture wasn't illegal after all.

Is there an exemption in the United Nations Convention against Torture (signed and ratified by USA) during the time of use of military force?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

If one or more of those refugees does end up doing mass killings of innocent men women and children of France this brave man should be taken out of his office and shot at the nearest wall.

That's analogue to how you handle mass killings in the USA, isn't it?

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Is there an exemption in the United Nations Convention against Torture (signed and ratified by USA) during the time of use of military force?

If we aren't really at war, then we aren't really using military force.

I am unsure if or how that would impact the convention that you mentioned. Does it cover situations that are neither wartime nor peacetime?

Attacks in Paris Stadium, concert hall

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know