Sign in to follow this  
Shootist Jeff

The Morality vs Pragmatism of "Assassination"

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

 

096193EB-BF9F-4102-B36E-49DB361E2783.jpeg

I'm assuming you directed that at Misoiled fuckface?  Such a perfect meme for him and his schtick....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I’m a puerile dweeb. 

:lol:

Share this post


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

I cannot comprehend why anybody with awareness of international situations would minimize the difference between Obama foreign policy and Bush/Cheney and/or Trump foreign policy. They are not -quite- light years apart but are very very different in like and in kind.

They might be to you but not so much from where I sit. OK Obama didn't start any big new wars but he didn't pull out of any, either. And when he didn't follow through on his 'red line' calls WRT Syria, he pissed away a lot of credibility. Bush - I said all I want to at the time. Anyone who launches a war on Afghanistan has rocks in his head. Doubling up on Iraq - really. It was the people from Saudi Arabia responsible for 9/11 and they're still sitting there smug & happy, defended by all 3 current & past Presidents. None of them have anything to be proud of there.

Trump - if Trump said he had my back I'd dress in drag with Kevlar undergarments because I wouldn't trust him to even stab me in the back, just as likely in the side or the arse. So don't think I'd take his word for anything at all. Bush 2 must be overjoyed that he got rid of the 'worst President ever' tag so quickly.

But this is drone assassinations we're talking about. The current President plays. The last 2 Presidents play. All of them in the absence of any formally declared wars.

Sorry but it's splitting hairs from where I sit, arguing that it was OK under Obama but not under Trump. You guys are arguing partisan politics. Bet the guys on the receiving end can't see any difference. Nor do I. 

FKT

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Yep, the point I was trying to make is whether assassination of a military leader is OK, or not. Seems it's OK provided there's a formal declaration of war, otherwise no.

Except Obama assassinated one hell of a lot of terrorist leaders by drone, and that was OK too. Or at least barely acceptable since nobody really screamed much. Apparently because there was some form of process which made it acceptable, seeing as he was President and all.

Except Trump 'invented' (extracted from his colon more likely) a new & different form or process with the same end result but his 'process' isn't acceptable because, well, I don't really know except it was Trump not Obama. But he's still President and in charge of the military.

The difference to the targets strikes me as minimal to none frankly.

As I said previously I think this whole caper is a really bad idea because it leads to other people doing the same thing and when (not if) that happens, you've no moral or legal comeback, you just have to suck it up.

At the same time I'm all in favour of killing off the opposition retail fashion by targeting the decision-makers rather than the grunts who just have to do what they're told. If Soleimani thought his decisions would have no personal consequences and found out differently - shrug. As for the argument that the replacement for him would be just as dedicated and even more angry, stipulated that's likely true. But - will they be as *effective*? And will they have personal fear of consequences? I don't think it a good thing to allow people to be immune from the consequences of their actions/decisions.

And yeah the same logic works in reverse, of course. I accept that.

FKT

Yep

Share this post


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

The second problem is that if we do not stand up to Trump on this issue, future presidents will regard starting wars as a power of the president. Once arrogated, presidential powers are never relinquished without a fight.

Ummmm, I think that train has already left the station before trump ever got to DC.  The last two certainly believed that.  But in reality every preznit since WWII has taken that to heart and the Congress hasn't said no yet.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, it's like this-

Death to the ('merkin) right-wing for it's environmental policies. Eye for an eye; means extermination. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

See, it's like this-

Death to the ('merkin) right-wing for it's environmental policies. Eye for an eye; means extermination. 

 

 

Ah, another Internet tough guy

Share this post


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

Ah, another Internet tough guy

has nothing to do with me, goldenboi. but if you're trippin', then fkn' dispute it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
8 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Yep, the point I was trying to make is whether assassination of a military leader is OK, or not. Seems it's OK provided there's a formal declaration of war, otherwise no.

Except Obama assassinated one hell of a lot of terrorist leaders by drone, and that was OK too. Or at least barely acceptable since nobody really screamed much. Apparently because there was some form of process which made it acceptable, seeing as he was President and all.

Except Trump 'invented' (extracted from his colon more likely) a new & different form or process with the same end result but his 'process' isn't acceptable because, well, I don't really know except it was Trump not Obama. But he's still President and in charge of the military.

The difference to the targets strikes me as minimal to none frankly.

As I said previously I think this whole caper is a really bad idea because it leads to other people doing the same thing and when (not if) that happens, you've no moral or legal comeback, you just have to suck it up.

At the same time I'm all in favour of killing off the opposition retail fashion by targeting the decision-makers rather than the grunts who just have to do what they're told. If Soleimani thought his decisions would have no personal consequences and found out differently - shrug. As for the argument that the replacement for him would be just as dedicated and even more angry, stipulated that's likely true. But - will they be as *effective*? And will they have personal fear of consequences? I don't think it a good thing to allow people to be immune from the consequences of their actions/decisions.

And yeah the same logic works in reverse, of course. I accept that.

FKT

A lot of people complained about Obama's drone program. And it was subject to a lot more court-like approval process.

FKT, I made the argument you reference and my answer is yes, possibly more effective, because effectiveness depends in part on popular support. Martyrs are great for that purpose.

Doug, too few complained about Obama's drone program, which was subject to no real oversight. To his credit, he did try to change that late in his term, but he failed. Suggested reading on the topic:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 3to1 said:
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Ah, another Internet tough guy

 has nothing to do with me, goldenboi. but if you're trippin', then fkn' dispute it.

Dispute what?  That you’re yet another shrill Murican hater?

Share this post


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

Ummmm, I think that train has already left the station before trump ever got to DC.  The last two certainly believed that.  But in reality every preznit since WWII has taken that to heart and the Congress hasn't said no yet.  

Assasinating the leaders of foreign countries is new.

Share this post


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

Assasinating the leaders of foreign countries is new.

Solifucky wasn't a leader of his country.  I'm glad I was able to clear that up for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

They might be to you but not so much from where I sit. OK Obama didn't start any big new wars but he didn't pull out of any, either. And when he didn't follow through on his 'red line' calls WRT Syria, he pissed away a lot of credibility. Bush - I said all I want to at the time. Anyone who launches a war on Afghanistan has rocks in his head. Doubling up on Iraq - really. It was the people from Saudi Arabia responsible for 9/11 and they're still sitting there smug & happy, defended by all 3 current & past Presidents. None of them have anything to be proud of there.

Trump - if Trump said he had my back I'd dress in drag with Kevlar undergarments because I wouldn't trust him to even stab me in the back, just as likely in the side or the arse. So don't think I'd take his word for anything at all. Bush 2 must be overjoyed that he got rid of the 'worst President ever' tag so quickly.

But this is drone assassinations we're talking about. The current President plays. The last 2 Presidents play. All of them in the absence of any formally declared wars.

Sorry but it's splitting hairs from where I sit, arguing that it was OK under Obama but not under Trump. You guys are arguing partisan politics. Bet the guys on the receiving end can't see any difference. Nor do I. 

FKT

The Syria pissing-away was a fine bit or Republican manipulating. Obama said he would not commit greater US military force to Syria without a mandate from Congress, the way it's supposed to work. The Republicans in Congress led him on, promising support then when he made a series of big public statements, cut him off at the knees.

And it worked.

You can say the enemy is America, but the enemy you see is the Republican Party and all it's benefactors in the economy hiding under the American flag.

Of course there's no difference between Obama and Bush/Cheney or Trump, with regard to drone strikes. They all did it. The buck stops at the President's desk. OTOH Trump orders drone strikes on a whim and/or for political expedience, Cheney for profit; Obama worked at building a fence around it and a process of judicial decision (to be fair, that started under Bush but only because the military requires justification of lawful orders).

So while the car might look the same as it vrooms by, what's under the hood is very VERY different. I'm not saying your wrong, in fact I agree with you to the point where I am seriously considering leaving the USA and not being an American any more, in the same way I am not a conservative any more. The only options I have are to either try to make my voice heard in how the car is driven, or to get out.

- DSK

Share this post


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

Who fucking mentioned this stupid movie?  I'm saying that the narratives by the operators that were there all consistently say there was no such order or intent to "capture" him.  OBL was going to die no matter what he did that night.  And I'm OK with that.  And so was Obama and the rest of the NSC.  NFW they wanted that circus of a trial going on.  It would have been a nightmare for the US.   

Whether you like it or not.... there are orders and then there are "orders".  I don't give an RA if the public order said "kill or capture" - there was never going to be a capture.  It needed to be said for public consumption, and the "capture" aspect had as much value as the piece of paper it was written on.  Just saying.

I the fuck mentioned that stupid movie. I the fuck also mentioned, by way of comparison, that we captured Saddam who was indeed armed at the time. Yeah, there are orders and then there are "orders". And then there's imagination which is what movies are all about, not even unknown unknowns but rather imagined unknowns.

You have a galactic sized availability bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2020 at 2:13 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Dispute what?  That you’re yet another shrill Murican hater?

Barcode_American_Flag.thumb.png.2911b25386bbc484efd93619351b93f3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2020 at 6:37 PM, Steam Flyer said:

in fact I agree with you to the point where I am seriously considering leaving the USA and not being an American any more, in the same way I am not a conservative any more. The only options I have are to either try to make my voice heard in how the car is driven, or to get out.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out......  Just saying.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out......  Just saying.

Coming from you, the guy whose loyalty is available to the highest bidder, is just beyond ironic.  

You are truly one of the gems here.

Share this post


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

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out......  Just saying.

??? It's not like you live here.

And while I had some very lucrative offers in Saudi, IMHO it's not even tempting. So don't worry, we're not going to be neighbors.

- DSK

Share this post


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

??? It's not like you live here.

And while I had some very lucrative offers in Saudi, IMHO it's not even tempting. So don't worry, we're not going to be neighbors.

- DSK

Unlike you, Jeffie is amoral.  So he's OK as long as he gets paid.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2020 at 5:12 AM, 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.

If I could go back in time I would have bought Amazon stock in 1997 for $1.50. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The local Rich insists that Sol was a "bad dude", but cannot come up with a single citation or source to demonstrate that he was.

In letting their "lidders" do their thinking for them, they show all the earmarks of authoritarian followers. 

And in this discussion, it should also be noted that the claim of an "imminent threat" is clearly a lie. 

The Drumph committed an aggressive act of war without permission of Congress, or even informing them. 

And to make it even worse, the leaders of the US military knew this and did it anyway. 

In blithely following illegal orders, they have gravely endangered the republic. 

Traitors all. 

Vets For Peace (but the analysis here is mine alone) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Olsonist said:

image.png.6a042f1b469a2d21597de1bfe0c33aa6.png

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/18/politics/trump-soleimani-details-mar-a-lago/index.html

 

This is Shitstain's justification for an assassination ... to donors.

I see a drone strike on Political Anarchy in the near future, when the mango shit-gibbon gets off the shitter long enough to order one, if he remembers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2020 at 4:35 PM, Ishmael said:

I see a drone strike on Political Anarchy in the near future, when the mango shit-gibbon gets off the shitter long enough to order one, if he remembers.

Yeah but he could only strike at the server not the posters, so what satisfaction would there be in it?

I once threw a HDD that had died at an inopportune moment out a window. The result when it hit the concrete was quite underwhelming. Shooting it with a high velocity rifle would have been better.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Yeah but he could only strike at the server not the posters, so what satisfaction would there be in it?

I once threw a HDD that had died at an inopportune moment out a window. The result when it hit the concrete was quite underwhelming. Shooting it with a high velocity rifle would have been better.

FKT

You'd think but I've found that shooting hard drives with a 12 gauge produces the most whelming results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Yeah but he could only strike at the server not the posters, so what satisfaction would there be in it?

I once threw a HDD that had died at an inopportune moment out a window. The result when it hit the concrete was quite underwhelming. Shooting it with a high velocity rifle would have been better.

FKT

I knew a lady that worked for the State Department in IT.  She was stationed at various embassies around the world.  She told me one time that in the event that the embassy was being overrun, they had a couple of sledge hammers where the classified computers were, and they were to take out the hard drives and pound the  HD discs into submission.  

Prior to that job, she had worked on an overseas Army base in Korea, (which is how I met her) that collected vast amounts of intelligence on the neighbor to the north.  She worked with the databases that cataloged this information, which required a very high level security clearance (the kind that even the name of the clearance was classified) since she virtually had access to all of that very sensitive information.  The compound that she worked on at the base was inside the fence of the base, and further surrounded by a very high, razor wire topped fence, with double gates for access.  The U-2 hangers at Osan Air Base in Korea had a similar fence.  

When she went to work for the State Department, I told her that with her  security clearance I knew that she wasn't working for the State Department, that was a cover story, but more likely her real employer was a 3 letter agency.  Of course she always vehemently denied it.

The Army base in Korea had a runway and it wasn't uncommon to see these unmarked, sophisticated Army spy planes on the flight line there along with other interesting aircraft.

image.png.c10634823c897ebc7406300133962566.png Image result for us army spy planes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this