Cool.
So it’s agreed - they’ll try to kill our generals, and we’ll try to kill theirs. Fair’s fair.
Except that when a General’s home is blown up on the occasion of his daughter’s wedding, killing fifty adults and twenty children, that will be cast as an assault on innocents whereas a drone strike on the wedding of a daughter of an Afghan insurgent will be characterised as collateral damage.
You political background will allow you to fully understand this dissonance.
What do you mean by Allessan’s “political background”?
I mean his political background- his experience of the exercise of power.
I am sure she just means Allessan lives in Israel. Pjen describes herself as having spent “a lifetime in politics” despite being a retired nurse. So don’t get too hung up on the poor phrasing.
What is his experience?
I ask because you haven’t used that phrase with anyone before that I remember.
BTW, not accusing you of anything, just genuinely curious.
Could you elaborate?
I have been active in politics for nearly fifty years from Kennedy in 68, student politics in the seventies, local councillor in the eighties and general worker from the nineties to date. Having a career does not stop one being politically active.
-
What gives ISIL the moral authority to attack ANYONE?
-
What gives them the legal authority?
-
If such ISIL attacks are both legally and morally justified, do you believe that such attacks are justified, period? If I argue that some action is legally and morally justified, I believe I am arguing that such actions are good. I cannot immediately think of something that is legally and morally justified, but is bad. Does that mean you think ISIL attacking US troops in the United States is good?
I’ll give you my answers:
-
ISIL has no moral authority to conduct attacks on anyone. As a terrorist organization, they lack any justification to use arms to achieve goals that are inimical to the interests of all civilization. They have as much right to attack any other military as Somali pirates do to seize ships.
-
ISIL has no legal authority to use force. They are not acting in self-defense, they literally started a war to seize territory from Syria and Iraq. The UN Charter specifically forbids anyone from threatening the territorial integrity of any country, which is what ISIL did, and the UN Charter specifically allows countries to engage in individual and collective self defense to reject such threats. The US and dozens of countries are acting in the collective self defense of Iraq, Turkey, Jordan, and even Israel and Syria, to defeat ISIL. ISIL does not have a right to self-defense from these countries. Think about it: if I punch you in the face, and you pull a knife to defend yourself, I don’t then get to shoot you with a gun and claim that it was in self defense because you pulled a knife on me.
-
This question is not applicable to me because I haven’t attempted to justify murder by terrorist groups.
I respect that everyone is entitled to a defense, so I’m eagerly waiting forPjen to explain why ISIL attacks are moral and legal.
I have not said that IS attacks are legal and moral.
I am suggesting that US actions and IS actions using targeted assassinations are legally and morally comparable.
So are ISIL attacks legal and moral, yes or no?
Being in politics is different than being active in politics. It was just bad phrasing on your part.
Insofar as they replicate other similar actions they are identical. There are various interpretations of the legalities and morality of such action. Such decisions are not based on the other attributes of the organisation concerned.
Or poor comprehension and interpretation on your part.
Is that a yes or a no?
Telling me that an apple in your hand is the same color as your couch doesn’t tell me if it is red or green. For someone who has lots of opinions, you sure seem reticent to take a stand on the morality and legality of actions by a truly barbaric terrorist group.
So, once again, can you answer my question without a dodge?
So are they legal and moral or not?
Really, the attributes of an organization have no relevance in your view?
Well noted
the clear meaning to your writing was as he understood it.
I’d be the first to admit that based on what I’ve seen in the media, and and my own experience with the operational level of war, that the U.S. drone campaign does tend to come across as sloppy, half-assed and occasionally almost staggeringly unprofessional. Targeted airstrikes are a serious business, and the Americans seem to be utterly crap in every aspect of it except for sheer volume.
That doesn’t mean that I’m opposed to the concept, though, just the execution. Targeted airstrikes can be a useful, effective and yes, even moral tool - if used correctly.
I think an important missing piece here (and I did not acknowledge this earlier, either) is that the so called IS is not a state. They are at best an insurgency and at worst an international criminal organization.
In the case of Iraq, the US has been asked by the legitimate, internationally recognized government to help defeat the SCIS inside their territory. Given the armed nature of this SCIS, it’s not realistic to expect to capture them in the manner that cops would capture criminals.
In the case of Syria, things are more dicy. We have NOT been asked by the government to aid them in fighting the SCIS. We are doing so as an independent actor. Now, one might argue that Syria is a failed state, and no longer able to police its own territory and so does not deserve the normal niceties accorded other states. But… one can also argue that US acting without authorization from the UN is problematic at best, and downright illegal at worst.
The SCIS has no legitimacy to attack anyone, anywhere. They are not a state. They are not a police force. They have no legal authority to commit acts of violence anywhere on earth.
As regards the US drone strikes which include targets where known civilians are present, in areas not authorized by the legitimate governments of the regions… those I have a serious problem with both legally and morally.
For those drone strikes at the invite of the governments involved, I’m not too concerned about legal problems, but I do have some moral problems with them. And I have some serious problems with them wrt being wise policy actions.
Your question has no content in the context of this discussion.