Sign in to follow this  
Shootist Jeff

The Morality vs Pragmatism of "Assassination"

Recommended Posts

So I've been watching this whole "Assassination" of Gen Solemani play out both here and in the world press.  And the level of outrage obviously seems to depend on where you sit as to whether it was a justifiable "killing" or "murder/assassination".

I'm curious though for those of you with your panties in a wad over this fuckwad's death.....  If you could go back in time and assassinate Hitler or Hirohito or Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or Napoleon or Pinochet or whatever bad dude caused the most human misery throughout history..... would you do it?  If you could have droned Hitler before he invaded Poland - would you do it?  Or would that be morally unethical?  

I'm in no way implying Solemani was on the level of a Hitler or Stalin.  So get that thought out of your pea-brained heads.  This is a discussion on the overall morality of the use of assassination of leaders and other "bad dudes".  

Discuss.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So I've been watching this whole "Assassination" of Gen Solemani play out both here and in the world press.  And the level of outrage obviously seems to depend on where you sit as to whether it was a justifiable "killing" or "murder/assassination".

I'm curious though for those of you with your panties in a wad over this fuckwad's death.....  If you could go back in time and assassinate Hitler or Hirohito or Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or Napoleon or Pinochet or whatever bad dude caused the most human misery throughout history..... would you do it?  If you could have droned Hitler before he invaded Poland - would you do it?  Or would that be morally unethical?  

I'm in no way implying Solemani was on the level of a Hitler or Stalin.  So get that thought out of your pea-brained heads.  This is a discussion on the overall morality of the use of assassination of leaders and other "bad dudes".  

Discuss.

Jeffrey(first of al, glad things deescalated a bit and you are doin ok) 

It's not the act, hell the guy was apparently a duche and probably deserved it, but the manor (and the justification he used) in which he did it.  Now we find out that there really was no justification and he did it to appease the hawks in the senate.  Plus, he is responsible for escalating the conflict and directly causing the deaths of 188 people...  So please stop bringing up the time tested moralistic human reaction towards something most of us find abhor able until you agree to hold the man accountable for the actual crime.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So I've been watching this whole "Assassination" of Gen Solemani play out both here and in the world press.  And the level of outrage obviously seems to depend on where you sit as to whether it was a justifiable "killing" or "murder/assassination".

I'm curious though for those of you with your panties in a wad over this fuckwad's death.....  If you could go back in time and assassinate Hitler or Hirohito or Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or Napoleon or Pinochet or whatever bad dude caused the most human misery throughout history..... would you do it?  If you could have droned Hitler before he invaded Poland - would you do it?  Or would that be morally unethical?  

I'm in no way implying Solemani was on the level of a Hitler or Stalin.  So get that thought out of your pea-brained heads.  This is a discussion on the overall morality of the use of assassination of leaders and other "bad dudes".  

Discuss.

Life is not a scratchy black-n-white wild-west movie with The GOOD GUY blowing away all the Bad Guys in the street, based on the color of their hat.

Discuss

- DSK

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, shaggy said:

Jeffrey(first of al, glad things deescalated a bit and you are doin ok) 

WTF are you talking about?  Are you PUI early in the am?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Life is not a scratchy black-n-white wild-west movie with The GOOD GUY blowing away all the Bad Guys in the street, based on the color of their hat.

Discuss

- DSK

At no point did I suggest that, so you must be IMAGINING that which I did not state. 

And I probably presented the OP question poorly.  I was not trying to suggest we do anything based on the hindsight of knowing history.  I meant to say that if we had actionable intel that Hitler was going to invade Poland and do all this other shit.... then what?  Are we justified in taking him out pre-hostilities?  

Discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really are a deeply stupid, amoral, trolling cunt Jeffraux.

 

would the Iraqis have been justified killing W in 2003? Per your “logic” yes. Gets into the whole appeal of strongmen like Shitstain to you and the elk though.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

You really are a deeply stupid, amoral, trolling cunt Jeffraux.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

At no point did I suggest that, so you must be IMAGINING that which I did not state. 

And I probably presented the OP question poorly.  I was not trying to suggest we do anything based on the hindsight of knowing history.  I meant to say that if we had actionable intel that Hitler was going to invade Poland and do all this other shit.... then what?  Are we justified in taking him out pre-hostilities?  

Discuss.

Yes. Rewriting history would be great. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason assassination of foreign leaders is a bad idea is that even shithole countries have the few million it takes to plan a really good one in any country.

Read the history of europe's kings if you need some context.

As long as you are OK with assassination being a regular part of statecraft for all countries, there's no problem.  I assume you agree that if Trump got droned tomorrow by Iranian sleepers, it would be justified.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

 

I'm curious though for those of you with your panties in a wad over this fuckwad's death.....  If you could go back in time and assassinate Hitler or Hirohito or Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or Napoleon or Pinochet or whatever bad dude caused the most human misery throughout history..... would you do it?  If you could have droned Hitler before he invaded Poland - would you do it?  Or would that be morally unethical?  

I'm in no way implying Solemani was on the level of a Hitler or Stalin.

So which is the question: Are you curious about why folks have their panties in a wad, or do you want to know if we should assassinate hitler if we somehow got a time machine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is pragmatic to act immorally. The perceived shortcut offered by setting aside one's morals nearly always comes back to bite you later. I would rather have some faith that if I do the right thing, I will have a better outcome than if I do not.  

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, phillysailor said:
41 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

And I probably presented the OP question poorly.  I was not trying to suggest we do anything based on the hindsight of knowing history.  I meant to say that if we had actionable intel that Hitler was going to invade Poland and do all this other shit.... then what?  Are we justified in taking him out pre-hostilities?  

Discuss.

Yes. Rewriting history would be great. 

Except for those who have to live through the unintended consequences.

Given the ability to assassinate Hitler -before- he started all the evil shit, AND the solid evidence of what he was doing/about to do, then yeah pull the trigger. In the absence of solid evidence and a fair legal process, then the people giving the order are themselves murderers... what then stops them from more murder, or just plain self-dealing greed and amoral decisions leading their own country to genocide, slave labor camps, murder of political rivals, etc etc?

There's a reason why this kind of moral decision is called a slippery slope.

Can you ABSOLUTELY IRONCLAD guaran-damn-tee that our leader(s) are not about to start slipping down it, and follow THIS immoral decision with another? Not one, not EVER?!?!??

 

1 minute ago, LenP said:

I don't think it is pragmatic to act immorally. The perceived shortcut offered by setting aside one's morals nearly always comes back to bite you later. I would rather have some faith that if I do the right thing, I will have a better outcome than if I do not.  

Well, evolutionary behaviorists think that there is strong evidence that moral codes arose out of the competition between social groups for resources... a leader with integrity could garner more followers, with a higher degree of cooperative action, etc etc.

Meawhile, it is a serious moral question, "Who would you trust to murder people?" and the obvious answer is, James Bond 007, of course... he has a license for it.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if it’s a military leader who has already murdered citizens and attacked non military targets. Is that different then a President/Prime Minister/King/Politician...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, chinabald said:

What if it’s a military leader who has already murdered citizens and attacked non military targets. Is that different then a President/Prime Minister/King/Politician...

Someone kills Donald Rumsfeld tomorrow and you are cool with that?

Since Trump has threatened non military targets in Iran and Civilians, and pardons war criminals would Iran be justified killing him?

You guys are really hellbent on this tribal violence aren’t you?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, chinabald said:

 Is that different then a President/Prime Minister/King/Politician...

Those are all military leaders.  Trump is the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces.  Sounds like a leader to me.  Think he has a little blood on his hands?  Think any of them don't?

Hey, at least the whole unrestricted assassinations idea will end those redneck rallies right quick. Plus the "DTSDTA"* thread will be fun.   

 

 

*deader than shit due to assassination

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thin the movie The Minority Report would be a good watch for Jeff right now.  Are we talking about some pre-crime judgement on state leaders?  That's the problem with preemptive strikes and assassinations.  You actually don't really know what the future holds.  And in this case, there was ZERO evidence of anything imminent other than Senators talking impeachment votes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So I've been watching this whole "Assassination" of Gen Solemani play out both here and in the world press.  And the level of outrage obviously seems to depend on where you sit as to whether it was a justifiable "killing" or "murder/assassination".

I'm curious though for those of you with your panties in a wad over this fuckwad's death.....  If you could go back in time and assassinate Hitler or Hirohito or Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or Napoleon or Pinochet or whatever bad dude caused the most human misery throughout history..... would you do it?  If you could have droned Hitler before he invaded Poland - would you do it?  Or would that be morally unethical?  

I'm in no way implying Solemani was on the level of a Hitler or Stalin.  So get that thought out of your pea-brained heads.  This is a discussion on the overall morality of the use of assassination of leaders and other "bad dudes".  

Discuss.

Would it have been morally ethical for the Iraqi government to have assassinated Navy Seal chief petty officer Eddie Gallagher, after he committed war crimes in their country?

Had it happened, I'm curious whether you'd have your panties in a bunch over that fuckwad's death.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah but think how fun assassination politics must have been back in the days of the monarchies.  Maybe not so fun for the monarchs, but for the regular folk!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a bad thread. It is pure blowback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Life is not a scratchy black-n-white wild-west movie with The GOOD GUY blowing away all the Bad Guys in the street, based on the color of their hat.

Discuss

- DSK

Sometimes life is that simple.  The General is responsible for the death of thousands of people.  Good people have a duty to take guys like that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

Sometimes life is that simple.  The General is responsible for the death of thousands of people.  Good people have a duty to take guys like that out.

Do good people have a duty to take people like Navy Seal chief petty officer Eddie Gallagher out?  Or is there a specifically higher body count needed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Would it have been morally ethical for the Iraqi government to have assassinated Navy Seal chief petty officer Eddie Gallagher, after he committed war crimes in their country?

Had it happened, I'm curious whether you'd have your panties in a bunch over that fuckwad's death.

Seems he was convicted of posing with a dead Iraqi.  If, however, accusations of him just shooting random civilians are true like a little girl and an old man, then it would certainly be justifiable if someone took him out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, benwynn said:

Do good people have a duty to take people like Navy Seal chief petty officer Eddie Gallagher out?  Or is there a specifically higher body count needed?

So, assuming your boy really did kill 2 innocent civilians, imagine someone that killed thousands of innocent people.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So I've been watching this whole "Assassination" of Gen Solemani play out both here and in the world press.  And the level of outrage obviously seems to depend on where you sit as to whether it was a justifiable "killing" or "murder/assassination".

I'm curious though for those of you with your panties in a wad over this fuckwad's death.....  If you could go back in time and assassinate Hitler or Hirohito or Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or Napoleon or Pinochet or whatever bad dude caused the most human misery throughout history..... would you do it?  If you could have droned Hitler before he invaded Poland - would you do it?  Or would that be morally unethical?  

I'm in no way implying Solemani was on the level of a Hitler or Stalin.  So get that thought out of your pea-brained heads.  This is a discussion on the overall morality of the use of assassination of leaders and other "bad dudes".  

Discuss.

Your post posits the existence of a time machine. Sure almost anyone from 2020 - or even 1945 - would happily blow Hitler straight to hell. His own officers tried it more than once IIRC. We don't have a time machine. No one took Hitler seriously at first, he was the leader of a bunch of idiot street-fighters and drunken clowns, the deplorables of their day. Some Germans decided to use him to get some things done and then get rid of him. By the time it was apparent that the monster was not going back in the cage it was too late. So if you want a policy of assassinating shithead rabble rousing politicians BEFORE they get into office, there will be dead bodies stacked up to the ceiling all over the world :rolleyes: Once Hitler actually started a war, we obviously were not averse to bombing the shit out of Berlin on the off chance one landed on his head. Another way your analogy breaks down is we didn't bomb Hitler, we bombed Goebbels or Himmler or some other #2/3/4/5/6 person. You think Iran doesn't have more generals that know how to blow shit up :rolleyes:

We set a precedent that we will regret.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

So, assuming your boy really did kill 2 innocent civilians, imagine someone that killed thousands of innocent people.  

:lol: The us truly is a land of morons

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

Seems he was convicted of posing with a dead Iraqi.  If, however, accusations of him just shooting random civilians are true like a little girl and an old man, then it would certainly be justifiable if someone took him out.

Wow. I can accuse you. Then take you out. Without any moral hang-ups. Cool! Gonna be a great society when your clan cleans out the pesky opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

Seems he was convicted of posing with a dead Iraqi.  If, however, accusations of him just shooting random civilians are true like a little girl and an old man, then it would certainly be justifiable if someone took him out.

Well there you go.  We'll just throw law out the window and leave it up to individuals do decide what constitutes a death penalty.  

This puts the line of offenses justifying execution somewhere between shooting random civilians and not putting enough mayo on a ham sandwich. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jzk said:

Sometimes life is that simple.  The General is responsible for the death of thousands of people.  Good people have a duty to take guys like that out.

 

Only to the simple-minded

What makes "good people" so "good"?

Hint- not murdering other people is a good starting point

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So I've been watching this whole "Assassination" of Gen Solemani play out both here and in the world press.  And the level of outrage obviously seems to depend on where you sit as to whether it was a justifiable "killing" or "murder/assassination".

I'm curious though for those of you with your panties in a wad over this fuckwad's death.....  If you could go back in time and assassinate Hitler or Hirohito or Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or Napoleon or Pinochet or whatever bad dude caused the most human misery throughout history..... would you do it?  If you could have droned Hitler before he invaded Poland - would you do it?  Or would that be morally unethical?  

I'm in no way implying Solemani was on the level of a Hitler or Stalin.  So get that thought out of your pea-brained heads.  This is a discussion on the overall morality of the use of assassination of leaders and other "bad dudes".  

Discuss.

hindsight is 20/20.

Maybe some southernor would go back and pre-assassinate Lincoln.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Do good people have a duty to take people like Navy Seal chief petty officer Eddie Gallagher out?  Or is there a specifically higher body count needed?

One witness claims that Gallagher said he killed  “three a day,” instructing him to “do the math” to obtain the total, per the newspaper. Gallagher also stands charged with shooting two civilians, a little girl and elderly man, and firing indiscriminately at civilians while overseas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, El Boracho said:
6 minutes ago, jzk said:

Seems he was convicted of posing with a dead Iraqi.  If, however, accusations of him just shooting random civilians are true like a little girl and an old man, then it would certainly be justifiable if someone took him out.

Wow. I can accuse you. Then take you out. Without any moral hang-ups. Cool! Gonna be a great society when your clan cleans out the pesky opposition.

Considering that "his clan" is just about stump-fuck stupid, they're not likely to win any contests based on anything other than a willingness to pull the trigger first. Then consider that they hate-hate-HATE others of their own elk based on petty ideological quibbles.... HEY JZK, how many angels can dance on a pinhead? ... and are likely to get bogged down in fratricidal sniping; they're absolutely not going to be the long-term winners.

Unfortunately, they are likely to sow a lot of destruction before they get taken out

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Your post posits the existence of a time machine. Sure almost anyone from 2020 - or even 1945 - would happily blow Hitler straight to hell. His own officers tried it more than once IIRC. We don't have a time machine. No one took Hitler seriously at first, he was the leader of a bunch of idiot street-fighters and drunken clowns, the deplorables of their day. Some Germans decided to use him to get some things done and then get rid of him. By the time it was apparent that the monster was not going back in the cage it was too late. So if you want a policy of assassinating shithead rabble rousing politicians BEFORE they get into office, there will be dead bodies stacked up to the ceiling all over the world :rolleyes: Once Hitler actually started a war, we obviously were not averse to bombing the shit out of Berlin on the off chance one landed on his head. Another way your analogy breaks down is we didn't bomb Hitler, we bombed Goebbels or Himmler or some other #2/3/4/5/6 person. You think Iran doesn't have more generals that know how to blow shit up :rolleyes:

We set a precedent that we will regret.

Georg Keller tried to blowup Hitler and other leaders in 1939; there were a half dozen plots against Hitler.

 

in fiction there was even a published in May 1939 bestseller “Rogue Male” about a thinly veiled Hitler assasination attempt.

 

killing people doesn’t necessarily change things for the better; Gavrilo Princip didn’t quite get what he wanted.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jzk said:

So, assuming your boy really did kill 2 innocent civilians, imagine someone that killed thousands of innocent people.  

Ratko Mladić, aka the ‘butcher of Bosnia’, was convicted of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.  That's some pretty heavy shit compared to anything Gen Solemani did. 

A UN tribunal lasting over 4 years sentenced Mladić to life imprisonment. 

Do you feel that sentences dealt out by a handful of men in secret rooms overrides that of laws established by processes within a civilized society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The premise of panties in a wad over the fuckwad’s death is baseless and nonsensical deflection from the actual reason people are pissed off about the assassination.

The killing of foreign officials By order of our chief executive , especially when Congress has not declared war, is not within the powers granted to the POTUS. 
 

Our Constitution includes very well defined obstacles which must be hurdled BEFORE anyone is allowed to wage war on behalf of our Constitutional Republic. 
 

The objection has noting to do with whether the dead guy was a wonderful human being or a nasty murderer. The objection is, according to our laws, our POTUS and his minions are now traitorous murderers who we should be trying for their conspiracy and crimes. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Well there you go.  We'll just throw law out the window and leave it up to individuals do decide what constitutes a death penalty.  

This puts the line of offenses justifying execution somewhere between shooting random civilians and not putting enough mayo on a ham sandwich. 

Not really.  When that guy got up and started shooting up the church, he was taken out pretty instantly.  Good riddance.

The world, however, is anarchy.  There is no way to deal with the General other than taking him out.  We can't just have him arrested.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gouvernail said:

The killing of foreign officials By order of our chief executive , especially when Congress has not declared war, is not within the powers granted to the POTUS. 
 

Our Constitution includes very well defined obstacles which must be hurdled BEFORE anyone is allowed to wage war on behalf of our Constitutional Republic. 
 

The objection has noting to do with whether the dead guy was a wonderful human being or a nasty murderer. The objection is, according to our laws, our POTUS and his minions are now traitorous murderers who we should be trying for their conspiracy and crimes. 

 

Can you point to language in the US Constitution that says this?

He is the commander in chief.  US troops were being killed by the general.  We shot the General.  No need for an act of Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Do you feel that sentences dealt out by a handful of men in secret rooms overrides that of laws established by processes within a civilized society?

When US troops are in harms way and are being killed by the General, absofuckinglutely.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

We can't just have him arrested.

Really? He was in one of our overseas colonies. In a car. On a highway. Pull up behind him in a cop car. Or a HumVee. Shine the red light. "Get out with your hands up. Lay on the ground." Arrest him. If he puts up a big fuss and pulls out a gun then off him.

Ya know, like in the movies. Or a black helicopter could snatch the cars with a magnet. Take him to Gitmo.

Jzk, your stupidity has become boring. Up your game.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Well there you go.  We'll just throw law out the window and leave it up to individuals do decide what constitutes a death penalty.  

This puts the line of offenses justifying execution somewhere between shooting random civilians and not putting enough mayo on a ham sandwich. 

 

18 minutes ago, jzk said:

Not really. 

Yes, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jzk said:

When US troops are in harms way and Trump is saying over and over and over are being killed by the General, absofuckinglutely.  

FIFY

Isn't it funny how the "I Don't Trust The Gubbermint" Brigade is all eager to swallow the mushroom soup when it gives them an excuse to go around murdering brown people.... or other enemies of their religion...

- DSK

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump saying anything "over and over and over" is never a good sign. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

Only to the simple-minded

What makes "good people" so "good"?

Hint- not murdering other people is a good starting point

- DSK

Unless, of course, they are murdering other people.  Like in the Church.  Like Hitler.  Like the General.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

Unless, of course, they are murdering other people.  Like in the Church.  Like Hitler.  Trump says Like the General.  

FIFY

Isn't it odd that Trump's own unconfirmed SecDef says that he saw no evidence? Not quite the same thing as saying there IS NO evidence, but still, it tends to undermine your insistence that Trump is NOT lying, this time.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

FIFY

Isn't it odd that Trump's own unconfirmed SecDef says that he saw no evidence? Not quite the same thing as saying there IS NO evidence, but still, it tends to undermine your insistence that Trump is NOT lying, this time.

- DSK

Is there some dispute about who the General has killed?  I wasn't there personally.  But I haven't seen anyone try to make the case that he didn't kill US troops and a bunch of innocent people.  

Make your case.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Trump saying anything "over and over and over" is never a good sign. 

Unless you're making book on how many porkies he's gonna spill, today

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

FIFY

Isn't it odd that Trump's own unconfirmed SecDef says that he saw no evidence? Not quite the same thing as saying there IS NO evidence, but still, it tends to undermine your insistence that Trump is NOT lying, this time.

- DSK

Most people with smarts just assume he's lying, and they will be correct 95% of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, jzk said:

Sometimes life is that simple.  The General is responsible for the death of thousands of people.  Good people have a duty to take guys like that out.

President Bush, along with a host on neocons on whom he relied, meet that qualification.  Is he, and they, fair game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole thing reminds of the kidnapping scenario question. Are you justified in torturing a suspected kidnapper if it means getting the victim back before he/she is raped or murdered? Or, are you justified in torturing a suspected bomber if you think doing so will save the lives of a huge crowd at the Super Bowl or the Boston Marathon?

I believe that legally, you are not.

However, if I believed that taking such action would save those lives,  I would be inclined to take it, but I would be prepared to suffer the consequences.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Most people with smarts just assume...

Im beginning to feel the wisdom flow through me! 

Ed?! :ph34r:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Remodel said:

This whole thing reminds of the kidnapping scenario question. Are you justified in torturing a suspected kidnapper if it means getting the victim back before he/she is raped or murdered? Or, are you justified in torturing a suspected bomber if you think doing so will save the lives of a huge crowd at the Super Bowl or the Boston Marathon?

I believe that legally, you are not.

However, if I believed that taking such action would save those lives,  I would be inclined to take it, but I would be prepared to suffer the consequences.

That’s a pretty honest and frank assessment IMO, and I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, chum said:

That’s a pretty honest and frank assessment IMO, and I agree.

What specific consequences?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, jzk said:

Is there some dispute about who the General has killed?  I wasn't there personally.  But I haven't seen anyone try to make the case that he didn't kill US troops and a bunch of innocent people.  

Make your case.  

:lol: Nothing says “libertarian” like requiring someone to justify the state shouldn’t have killed someone after the state killed someone.

hitler hadnt actually killed many people before September 1939. Run a Violent racist thug state, yes, but wholesale mass murderer? Not yet.
 

He was liked because he killed the people who needed killing and didn’t wait for the law.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that some have made the point that Solemani was a government official and that consequently killing him crossed some ethical line that does not apply to the killing of grunts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was nothing pragmatic about this assassination. It was just stupid. This douche was Hitler or Hirohito or Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or Napoleon or Pinochet? He wished. He wasn't even Yamamoto. He was a modern major general for an at best developing country which hasn't attacked us. Do not mythologize him. 

The point @Shootist Jeff misses is that WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH IRAN. But Jeff's boy Shitstain imagines 4 imminent attacks. Even the SecDef said he'd seen no intelligence that they were gonna attack. Jeff's boy Shitstain *didn't* notify the Gang of 8 cuz it's too sekret.

In fact, what Jeff really doesn't get about this is that Iran just isn't that important. Like Iraq before it, Iran just doesn't rate. We just spent about $3T on Iraq and Afghanistan to no purpose. That was stupid so let's pointlessly assassinate one of Iran's generals. Jenius move.

China rates. Russia rates. Iran? Iran doesn't rate. What Jeff really doesn't get is that Iran (like Cuba+Vietnam) could have been and probably still could be cultivated. Yeah, I get that KSA+Israel don't want that but fuck them.

Now I see that Jeff's boy wants to restart talks with his BFF Kim Jong Un.

Really, you can't make this shit up but our elk will swoon.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

The General is responsible for the death of thousands of people.  Good people have a duty to take guys like that out.

So was 

Reagan

Bush 1

Clinton

Bush 2

Obama

Trump

 

You want them dead too!????!!!? That's some fucked up shit!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

I find it interesting that some have made the point that Solemani was a government official and that consequently killing him crossed some ethical line that does not apply to the killing of grunts.

So we can assume you are cool with various hit squads from all over the world converging on Washington DC to take out their frustrations on various and sundry government workers and politicians?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

I find it interesting that some have made the point that Solemani was a government official and that consequently killing him crossed some ethical line that does not apply to the killing of grunts.

Can you point out where somebody made this point?

"It would have been OK to drone some random Iranians, or some Iranian foot soldiers, but government officials?!?... NO WAY"

I suspect you are lying again

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kent_island_sailor said:

So we can assume you are cool with various hit squads from all over the world converging on Washington DC to take out their frustrations on various and sundry government workers and politicians?

 

Yes, because the US government is just like the Iranian government that kills 1500 innocent protesters and gay people for being gay.  That is exactly the same.  Just different teams.  Which is your team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

So we can assume you are cool with various hit squads from all over the world converging on Washington DC to take out their frustrations on various and sundry government workers and politicians?

 

If they are just dealing with their frustrations then no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

So we can assume you are cool with various hit squads from all over the world converging on Washington DC to take out their frustrations on various and sundry government workers and politicians?

I’ve long assumed @Dog was cool with a race based class of civilizations total war. Everything is on the table when you are waging war against the enemy - be it Iran or the Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jzk said:

Yes, because the US government is just like the Iranian government that kills 1500 innocent protesters and gay people for being gay.  That is exactly the same.  Just different teams.  Which is your team?

To the Iranians, the Yemenis, the Chinese, the Turks, and pretty much all of latin america, the US Governement has been far, far worse for a hundred years.

Whatever your team is, there are more people today who think the US is a bad actor than who think the same about Iran.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I’ve long assumed @Dog was cool with a race based class of civilizations total war. Everything is on the table when you are waging war against the enemy - be it Iran or the Democrats.

Good demonization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MR.CLEAN said:

To the Iranians, the Yemenis, the Chinese, the Turks, and pretty much all of latin america, the US Governement has been far, far worse for a hundred years.

Whatever your team is, there are more people today who think the US is a bad actor than who think the same about Iran.

Meanwhile, we don't just murder 1500 people for protesting or gay people for being gay.  And now the guy that did do those things no longer can.  Good riddance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

Good demonization.

Whatever you say mr “Judeo-Christian tradition”

no ones making the elk advocate assassination, you guys are doing that all yourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

So was 

Reagan

Bush 1

Clinton

Bush 2

Obama

Trump

 

You want them dead too!????!!!? That's some fucked up shit!

 

Reagan and Bush 1 really don't count as they are dead already.  Let's pretend like a Chinese restaurant that they're 86'd.  Can we choose one from the remaining items?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Amati said:

What specific consequences?  

In this specific case, a counter strike, which we wisely (imo) did not respond to militarily. At least there seemed to be some measure of restraint, despite our current military posture there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jzk said:

Meanwhile, we don't just murder 1500 people for protesting or gay people for being gay.  

Nope, we kill a couple hundred thousand because fake WMD

I think it's fucked that you want to send a drone strike to kill Bush 2, Clinton, Obama, and Trump.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, chum said:

In this specific case, a counter strike, which we wisely (imo) did not respond to militarily. At least there seemed to be some measure of restraint, despite our current posture there.

So no specific consequences for torture if the end result is ok.

getting a kick out of the ANTIFA is horrible crowd indignant over a country cracking down on protesters 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does a declaration of war change what is moral?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Amati said:

 

46 minutes ago, Remodel said:

This whole thing reminds of the kidnapping scenario question. Are you justified in torturing a suspected kidnapper if it means getting the victim back before he/she is raped or murdered? Or, are you justified in torturing a suspected bomber if you think doing so will save the lives of a huge crowd at the Super Bowl or the Boston Marathon?

I believe that legally, you are not.

However, if I believed that taking such action would save those lives,  I would be inclined to take it, but I would be prepared to suffer the consequences.

What specific consequences?  

Well, there's always the possibility of legal consequences, and reprisal from the buddies of the guy you tortured/murdered...

Then there's your own conscience. This is a major issue, for people who don't live in a cartoon world. The life/death situations I've been in (mercifully few, may I say, and I'm truly thankful I have never had the experience of being a soldier in combat) were accidents. I don't have any tendency to second-guess myself but have some big big regrets.

Among my friends, I have a number of veterans who have killed, and on the rare occasions the subject comes up, one can see that it bothers them badly. One of my friends is a retired ER doc, and on one occasion involving some drunken soul searching, he blurted out that he'd had over a thousand human lives slip thru his hands no matter how hard he was trying to save them.

If you see life as a two-dimensional scratchy lo-res B&W cowboy movie, if you see yourself as a cartoon character, then it doesn't bother you. Or (more likely IMHO) if your moral sense is deficient such that you WISH you were a he-man killing machine, you pretend it wouldn't.

IF in the extremely unlikely circumstance that somehow I had charge of a mass-murder-plotter, and by torturing him I could head off some major atrocity, I would lean more towards "would NOT" than "would" use torture. Partly out my own, possibly mistaken, moral compass, and partly because a lot of people who should know (having direct experience in this field) say that torture does not yield accurate, reliable information. But there's always that nagging exception, isn't there???

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Nope, we kill a couple hundred thousand because fake WMD

I think it's fucked that you want to send a drone strike to kill Bush 2, Clinton, Obama, and Trump.

 

Even you can understand the difference between civilian casualties in war and actually lining up protesters and shooting them because they are protesters.  Or maybe you can't.

If you are suggesting that we not invade Iran with ground forces, I agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Does a declaration of war change what is moral?

Its all about procedure.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

Does a declaration of war change what is moral?

A declaration of war changes everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

Even you can understand the difference between civilian casualties in war and actually lining up protesters and shooting them because they are protesters.  

 

Quick question: What's the difference to the dead civilians?

 

Not sure what war you're referring to though.  Did we declare war?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jzk said:

Its all about procedure.  

Isn't it about the constitution?  I didn't figure you for an anti-originalist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jzk said:

Its all about procedure.  

Yes, it is. Because “procedures” aka laws are what preclude your dumbass getting murdered in a drone strike by some state and that state saying “tough shit jerkzs family, he seemed like a guy that needed killing”

you sound just like all of the rich fucks in Weimar Germany that thought because they were rich and smart the Nazi thugs wouldn’t turn on them. Didn’t work out that way, it never does. It’s a rule of law, or it’s not. You’ve picked your side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

So no specific consequences for torture if the end result is ok.

That’s a tough one for me Miss.When did we jump to torture? Let me turn it around on you. There’s a tanker in SF bay with a large nuke aboard. Your whole family is there on vacation down at Pier 39 admiring the scenery. Billy Bob from the oil patch in Oklahoma is in on the plot. We catch Billy Bob, but he ain’t sayin nuttin!

WWMD?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

A declaration of war changes everything.

So we can switch morality off and on. How cool is that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

So we can assume you are cool with various hit squads from all over the world converging on Washington DC to take out their frustrations on various and sundry government workers and politicians?

 

I’m pretty sure if they could, some would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now the local Reich is all about total faith in the Intell dudes, to the point that they cannot even 

be bothered to cite any evidence at all that Soleimani was a bad guy . . 

while last week they were vigorously denouncing those same Intell dudes as deep-state traitors. 

Here is one of the few articles out there that takes a balanced view of Soliemani IMHO 

https://www.juancole.com/2020/01/soleimani-against-support.html

Come on Reich - where is your evidence that Sol Guy was a bad dude? 

Or are y'all merely authoritarian followers? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog, was this assassination by your boy Shitstain a matter of morality? Please explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Remodel said:

This whole thing reminds of the kidnapping scenario question. Are you justified in torturing a suspected kidnapper if it means getting the victim back before he/she is raped or murdered? Or, are you justified in torturing a suspected bomber if you think doing so will save the lives of a huge crowd at the Super Bowl or the Boston Marathon?

I believe that legally, you are not.

However, if I believed that taking such action would save those lives,  I would be inclined to take it, but I would be prepared to suffer the consequences.

That's a common thought when it comes to justifying torture.  Other than the morality question, there is another problem.

Study after study has shown that torture isn't terribly effective.  Of course everybody has a breaking point, but it could take more time to get the required info before the big event occurred than is available.  Often people being tortured will give false information, to stop the torture.  Again, but the time the information was discovered to be incorrect, it could be too late.  People can be trained to be resistant to torture.  Again, at some point they will give in but there are techniques that help to resist.  And of course, it is possible to kill a torturee before they can reveal much.  I think people watch too many war movies.  

Good torture is an art, and is difficult to do well without a lot of training.  My last boss in the Army was a psychologist.  He was deployed during the Persian Gulf war in 1991.  After the battle was over, he was sent on a very hush hush mission in Afghanistan.  He wouldn't discuss it, but I had a pretty good idea what it was about.

I think it sounds nice and is a good way to justify torture but in reality, I don't think it would help a lot.  The downside is far greater than the chance of getting any actionable information in my opinion.  Torture is wrong.  Period.  Once you start down that slippery slope, shit happens.  The other thing is, the other side can use torture as well.  Funny how American's get all upset when GI Joe or Jane get their fingernails ripped off.  When we do it too, it's hard to claim the moral high ground.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

So we can switch morality off and on. How cool is that!

That's how the Constitution and the geneva convention work.   You know why?

Because morality varies widely from country to country and year to year.  4 years ago no real christian would ever have voted for a philandering, whorefucking, abortion-approving democrat TV star from Gnu Yawk because their morals wouldn't allow it.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dog said:

So we can switch morality off and on. How cool is that!

War is never moral. The issue is not morality.

attempting to include morality is deflection from the actual situation and how it threatens our Constitutional Republic.

The Commander in Chief May not wage war unless the Congress declares war. Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again have each been illegally waged wars. 
 

The rules of our Constitution are clear. America does not wage war on the whim of a monarch. America only wages war when the Representatives of their people have agreed the war is necessary. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites