So Much for Due process, Drones

[gerryh]

Actually, it's not. In battle you're killing another person on purpose, and it's not murder.

Anyway, the point was, if you got banned, it probably wasn't for your position on war... it would have been for how you expressed that position.

You can call a turd a turd without calling it sh*t.

Not being murder is your opinion, not mine. Seems people don't like seeing dismembered innocents, they prefer not to have to see the results of what they support.

same as abortion, quickest way to get banned is to show what abortion really is. To show what a baby looks like after the "doctors" are finished with it.

 

[Omicron]

There is no joy in bloodshed. At all.

Well, take solace in the fact that Canadian troops have never been told they are supposed to love their job.

Some nations expect their soldiers to attack with a thrill of glory, but for Canadians, it's more like a sense of, "So, it's come down to that..."

Not being murder is your opinion, not mine.

*Sigh*... The oncoming enemy troops know darn-good-and-well that they are walking into a potential-death situation, so it's not murder, which is killing an unwilling innocent.

Seems people don't like seeing dismembered innocents, they prefer not to have to see the results of what they support.

Actually, modern war movies are quite graphic - dismemberment and all - and people are willing to pay for it.

For that matter, the most popular genre of movies is horror, which does not get shown in theaters much nor does it win many Oscars, but it does get huge grass-roots market-support in the form of DVD and cable Video-on-Demand.

same as abortion, quickest way to get banned is to show what abortion really is. To show what a baby looks like after the "doctors" are finished with it.

Hmm.. the first time I saw a human abortion vividly close up and in color was when I was 17. It was a documentary presented by a Christian fundamentalist group who wanted to shock everyone.

What I remember thinking was, "Well, if that's how it's done, then we know the embryo didn't suffer much".

 

[gerryh]

*Sigh*... The oncoming enemy troops know darn-good-and-well that they are walking into a potential-death situation, so it's not murder, which is killing an unwilling innocent.

sigh all you want

Actually, modern war movies are quite graphic - dismemberment and all - and people are willing to pay for it.

For that matter, the most popular genre of movies is horror, which does not get shown in theaters much nor does it win many Oscars, but it does get huge grass-roots market-support in the form of DVD and cable Video-on-Demand.



Hmm.. the first time I saw a human abortion vividly close up and in color was when I was 17. It was a documentary presented by a Christian fundamentalist group who wanted to shock everyone.

What I remember thinking was, "Well, if that's how it's done, then we know for sure the embyo didn't suffer much".

and yet, I've been banned, from more boards than just this one, for showing the exact same thing.


So, you don't think the baby suffered while it's legs and arms were torn off and then the body sliced up, interesting.

you are definately one sick fu ck.

 

[Omicron]

So, you don't think the baby suffered while it's legs and arms were torn off and then the body sliced up, interesting.

you are definately one sick fu ck.

Not if it was done within the 17 week window.

There's no nerve tissue to have any form of consciousness nor feel any sensation of pain in that window.

Until nerves and neurons form, it's just tissue.

 

[gerryh]

Not if it was done within the 17 week window.

There's no nerve tissue to have any form of consciousness nor feel any sensation of pain in that window.

Until nerves and neurons form, it's just tissue.

if if if........... what a wonderfully denial world you live in.

 

[Omicron]

if if if........... what a wonderfully denial world you live in.

:roll: Fine...

Not when it's done within the 17 week window.

There's no nerve tissue to have any form of consciousness nor feel any sensation of pain during that time.

Until nerves and neurons form, it's just tissue.

 

[Goober]

Could we get back on topic?

 

[skookumchuck]

I've been banned from this site for my views on war.

Some banning is in order for you for calling names also. Your method of discussion is totally ridiculous, you would not last very long in the real world.

 

[gerryh]

Some banning is in order for you for calling names also. Your method of discussion is totally ridiculous, you would not last very long in the real world.

of course I wouldn't:roll:

 

[EagleSmack]

I'm not sure "Shock and Awe" would be a big selling feature for a war now, considering it was used in Iraq, which is recognized as one of the most poorly prosecuted wars in recent history.

By people who opposed it I am sure.

 

[Rosebud]

Seriously. Do you care if eight kids you don't know are blown up in a drone strike? Why?

If the same eight kids (or eight different kids) are killed by a tsunami, or a fire, or an outbreak of disease, does it make any difference?

I'm asking an honest question. I'll freely admit that I don't see the difference. I don't actively want anybody to die, but is the life of a child lost in a tsunami somehow of less value than the life of a child lost in a drone strike? Or in the civil war in Congo?


What's your authority for "the right form?"

Hague Convention - Article III, Opening of Hostilities

Art 1 - The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war

This article implies the parties are known to each other. Terrorism is a policy, not a party identifier.

Article 2 - The existence of a state of war must be notified to the neutral Powers without delay,

If this article demonstrates the necessity of distinguishing who the neutral parties are, then logically
the excluded are the intended opposition. This article points out a second responsibility of a standard
form of declaration of war, in that we need to know who is NOT on the hit list.

 

[Goober]

Hague Convention - Article III, Opening of Hostilities

Art 1 - The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war

This article implies the parties are known to each other. Terrorism is a policy, not a party identifier.

Article 2 - The existence of a state of war must be notified to the neutral Powers without delay,

If this article demonstrates the necessity of distinguishing who the neutral parties are, then logically
the excluded are the intended opposition. This article points out a second responsibility of a standard
form of declaration of war, in that we need to know who is NOT on the hit list.

Just as Japan started a War so did the terrorists.
Perhaps a good hand wringing as they did not follow the correct protocols.
September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Hague Convention - Article III, Opening of Hostilities

Art 1 - The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war

This article implies the parties are known to each other. Terrorism is a policy, not a party identifier.

Doesn't apply. Al Qaeda isn't a Contracting Power, so this isn't hostilities "between themselves."

Nice try, though.

Article 2 - The existence of a state of war must be notified to the neutral Powers without delay,

If this article demonstrates the necessity of distinguishing who the neutral parties are, then logically
the excluded are the intended opposition. This article points out a second responsibility of a standard
form of declaration of war, in that we need to know who is NOT on the hit list.

As I pointed out previously, this requirement was satisfied by the publication of the AUMF on 14 Sep 2001.

So again, nice try.

Don't like it? Call the International Police and have them arrest the United States. Or have any offended country sue the U.S. at the ICJ.

Funny how that ain't happened, enit?

 

[gerryh]

Just as Japan started a War so did the terrorists.
Perhaps a good hand wringing as they did not follow the correct protocols.
September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, you are equating the terrorists with the sovereign country of Japan, is that right?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

So, you are equating the terrorists with the sovereign country of Japan, is that right?

What's not to compare, insofar as they attacked without warning or statement?

 

[Goober]

So, you are equating the terrorists with the sovereign country of Japan, is that right?

Nope.

 

[gerryh]

Nope.

Then what is your point bringing Japan into the convo?

What's not to compare, insofar as they attacked without warning or statement?

One is a country, the other a criminal organization.

 

[Goober]

Then what is your point bringing Japan into the convo?




One is a country, the other a criminal organization.

The point is clear- It was directed to RBs post. You are a smart fella, I am sure I do not have to lead you to the point made.

 

[gerryh]

The point is clear- It was directed to RBs post. You are a smart fella, I am sure I do not have to lead you to the point made.

There is no comparison. Japan attacked and declared war, the u.s. declared war and retaliated against Japan.

AQ, a criminal organization not a country, preformed an illegal act by hijacking 4 planes and flying 3 of them into buildings. The u.s. then "declared war" on a criminal organization and attacked Afghanistan. Nowhere did they specifically declare war on Afghanistan and they have also invaded Pakistani airspace and killed people in Pakistan without Pakistani approval.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

There is no comparison. Japan attacked and declared war, the u.s. declared war and retaliated against Japan.

AQ, a criminal organization not a country, preformed an illegal act by hijacking 4 planes and flying 3 of them into buildings. The u.s. then "declared war" on a criminal organization and attacked Afghanistan. Nowhere did they specifically declare war on Afghanistan and they have also invaded Pakistani airspace and killed people in Pakistan without Pakistani approval.

Whatever makes you think war can only be declared on a nation-state?

The first war the U.S. ever engaged in was against a non-state actor. Britain engaged in many wars against non-state actors.