Russian ambassador shot!

[Kutnupe14]

So as long as the government is killing innocents, non-combatants that work for that government are fair game. It doesn't even matter if the assassin is state sponsored or just an individual who decided that it's justified.

Maybe think on that a bit.

Is the logic above actually less offending, than the logic that justified the dropping of the atomic bomb?

 

[Woobie]

So as long as the government is killing innocents, non-combatants that work for that government are fair game.

Maybe think on that a bit.

I hear you, but we're also talking about a group of people who are out of options. They have no allies willing to commit forces. They do not receive aid. They're caught between acquiescing to the despot they rebelled from in the first place, and one of the mightiest militaries in the world.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Is the logic above actually less offending, than the logic that justified the dropping of the atomic bomb?

.
One murder is insignificant next to the holocaust. We don't really care when dealing with a murder. So, I guess you can start a new debate on the atomic bomb if you like but it's irrelevant to this conversation.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I hear you, but we're also talking about a group of people who are out of options. They have no allies willing to commit forces. They do not receive aid. They're caught between acquiescing to the despot they rebelled from in the first place, and one of the mightiest militaries in the world.

.
How many innocents killed does it take to justify attacks on non-combatants, if you have no allies and are facing one of the mightiest militaries in the world?

If it doesn't matter if it's a the action of a state or an individual, I'm ethically cool if I drive to the Russian embassy and start picking off employees? They are fair game, or I have to be Syrian?

 

[Route 45]

I hear you, but we're also talking about a group of people who are out of options. They have no allies willing to commit forces. They do not receive aid. They're caught between acquiescing to the despot they rebelled from in the first place, and one of the mightiest militaries in the world.

If they rebelled, then they are simply combatants on the losing side. Not innocents. (Although innocents die in every conflict) They can surrender, or they can fight to the death. No side ever won a conflict by terrorism against non-combatants.

 

[Kutnupe14]

.
How many innocents killed does it take to justify attacks on non-combatants, if you have no allies and are facing one of the mightiest militaries in the world?

If it doesn't matter if it's a the action of a state or an individual, I'm ethically cool if I drive to the Russian embassy and start picking off employees? They are fair game, or I have to be Syrian?

I think you'd have a difficult case calling the ambassador, a guy who presents Russia's policy in the region, as being an innocent. We're not talking about the poor schlep running mail at an embassy, but a guy who actually has a hand in policy towards how the Russia behaves in the region.

 

[Roland of Gilead]

I guess he takes it personal when it's somebody else doing the assassinating. As far as I'm concerned the ambassador was fair game.

Who did the Russians assasinate? It's real question I don't know what you are talking about.

I know they have been doing mass bombings in Syria, but I assume that is not what you're referencing.

 

[Woobie]

If they rebelled, then they are simply combatants on the losing side. Not innocents. (Although innocents die in every conflict) They can surrender, or they can fight to the death. No side ever won a conflict by terrorism against non-combatants.

The combatants are not innocent. Thing is, their wives and kids are the ones dying in the gas. Actually, a lot of folks have won conflicts while using terrorism against non-combatants. The Viet Cong did ok for themselves. But we aren't talking terrorism, this guy is the agent of the Russian State.

 

[Woobie]

.
How many innocents killed does it take to justify attacks on non-combatants, if you have no allies and are facing one of the mightiest militaries in the world?

If it doesn't matter if it's a the action of a state or an individual, I'm ethically cool if I drive to the Russian embassy and start picking off employees? They are fair game, or I have to be Syrian?

I guess they should just lie back and let the Russians kill their families, then.

 

[Route 45]

The combatants are not innocent. Thing is, their wives and kids are the ones dying in the gas. Actually, a lot of folks have won conflicts while using terrorism against non-combatants. The Viet Cong did ok for themselves. But we aren't talking terrorism, this guy is the agent of the Russian State.

I guess I should have clarified. You can't win a conflict against a determined enemy with terrorism. I wouldn't call us "determined" when it came to the Vietnam conflict. (Politically speaking)
This guy was an ambassador. He was not a combatant. Legitimate states do not assassinate diplomats from other states.

 

[Route 45]

I guess they should just lie back and let the Russians kill their families, then.

Losing a war sucks. The way I see it, they can flee, fight or surrender. That's it.

What can they hope to gain by assassinating a Russian diplomat?

 

[bwframe]

It's quite unnerving that there are those among us that think the way they do.

Wow, just when you think you've seen it all...

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I guess they should just lie back and let the Russians kill their families, then.

The assassination of the Russian ambassador to Turkey saves Syrian families by ___________ .

Help me understand the new argument of why killing a non-combatant is ok by filling in the blank.

I think you'd have a difficult case calling the ambassador, a guy who presents Russia's policy in the region, as being an innocent. We're not talking about the poor schlep running mail at an embassy, but a guy who actually has a hand in policy towards how the Russia behaves in the region.

You misunderstand the question. How many innocents must a government kill before I can take it upon myself to target non-combatants and be ethically justified in your world?

 

[printcraft]

Wow, just when you think you've seen it all...

I know right!?

 

[Cameramonkey]

The assassination of the Russian ambassador to Turkey saves Syrian families by ___________ .

Help me understand the new argument of why killing a non-combatant is ok by filling in the blank.



You misunderstand the question. How many innocents must a government kill before I can take it upon myself to target non-combatants and be ethically justified in your world?

Im curious too. And to put a finer point on it, if non combatants are fair game, where is the line? When is it NOT OK to shoot them because they are just a drone/worker bee? Ambassador seems OK from what I have gleaned. Embassy staff? Cabinet ministers? (equivalent to congress/senate/etc) govt ministers? Their assistants/clerical? Support staff? Capitol grounds maintenance worker? Govt school teachers? Road crews?

If you dont give a free pass to ambassadors, how do you expect to maintain relations/communications? You cant exactly negotiate if the opponent can whip out a gun and blow away your civilian representative that has the sole task of interfacing with the other side. Thats just not productive.

 

[foszoe]

Yeah I am confused too. Seems we are saying terrorism is justified or something as an act of war....

But it's late and I may not be understanding

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You cant exactly negotiate if the opponent can whip out a gun and blow away your civilian representative that has the sole task of interfacing with the other side. Thats just not productive.

Screw it, we'll just do all diplomatic work through Skype.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Screw it, we'll just do all diplomatic work through Skype.

Well, this *IS* the 21st century. You may be onto something. LOL

 

[printcraft]

Yeah I am confused too. Seems we are saying terrorism is justified or something as an act of war....

But it's late and I may not be understanding

Well, he's a big fan of BLM and their own brand of domestic terrorism.... so it's not much of a stretch.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yeah I am confused too. Seems we are saying terrorism is justified or something as an act of war....

But it's late and I may not be understanding

If we are calling this assassination terrorism, then I completely believe terrorism is justified as an act of war.