Russian ambassador shot!

[ArmedProgrammer]

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

It IS an act of asymetric warfare. That part, I don't think that most folks disagree with. So are the IED's that take out American soldiers. And a lot of other devices.

Now for the "is it justified" part.... Justified means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. So let's boil it down a little...

1) Do you agree with it?
2) Would you pursue the people that did and aggressively hunt them down?
3) How much effort would you expend on their extermination, given what they have done (they committed an act of asymetric warfare and took out the Russian ambassador) . I'm sure that whomever was behind this had their reasons.

I think that a lot of the reaction to this may reflect how one feels about Putin and the Russians?

(e.g. if you've bought in to the notion that the Russians meddled in our election, and are pissed about it to some degree, then you might not care as much when their ambassador gets taken out.)

I for one - can see how the assassin may have had reasons, but I also think that there's going to be hell to pay from both the Russian side and Turkey and others over this.

 

[Woobie]

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?

One ambassador will embolden the Russians. Seven might give them pause to rethink what they are doing. But this assumes there has to be a reason to kill him other than just hurting your enemy.

Communication can still take place. Neutral territory with representatives of each side and mutual assurances. Just like it was done in the old days.

Just because it makes you squeamish doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate, tried and true act of warfare. There is no safety guaranteed to a diplomat by his enemy unless the enemy expressly agrees to receive him. Just like the white flag of truce. When you are at war, you are at war.

Not that long ago the US was killing civilians working on technology and manufacturing of war goods. Actually I'm sure that's sill going on, but Israel is likely handling most of that for us. Russian and Iranian scientists in Iran die a lot.

This is the mamby pamby view of war that we have taken in contemporary society. War is hell. Keep it as short as possible to reduce suffering. Protracting it by imposing all sorts of arbitrary rules that have never been part of warfare is just placing yourself at a disadvantage to your enemy and dragging out the suffering. There is no need to kill actual innocents, but if someone is working to provide aid and comfort to your enemy, then you take the fight to him.

 

[spencer rifle]

“You might as well appeal against a thunderstorm as against these terrible hardships of war. War is cruelty, there is no use trying to reform it; the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”
― William T. Sherman

 

[Woobie]

It IS an act of asymetric warfare. That part, I don't think that most folks disagree with. So are the IED's that take out American soldiers. And a lot of other devices.

Now for the "is it justified" part.... Justified means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. So let's boil it down a little...

1) Do you agree with it?
2) Would you pursue the people that did and aggressively hunt them down?
3) How much effort would you expend on their extermination, given what they have done (they committed an act of asymetric warfare and took out the Russian ambassador) . I'm sure that whomever was behind this had their reasons.

I think that a lot of the reaction to this may reflect how one feels about Putin and the Russians?

(e.g. if you've bought in to the notion that the Russians meddled in our election, and are pissed about it to some degree, then you might not care as much when their ambassador gets taken out.)

I for one - can see how the assassin may have had reasons, but I also think that there's going to be hell to pay from both the Russian side and Turkey and others over this.

As an American, it makes no difference whether I agree with it or not. Russia will certainly try to pursue those behind it, and that is their prerogative.

The last paragraph is something we haven't spent much time talking about. I think this was ill-advised and amateurish. They went with the old go-to "making a statement" play. And that was a bad call, which precipitated how the assassination was executed. I think we'll look back on this as a stupid move.

 

[Woobie]

This isn't about Kut, this is about the late Russian Ambassador, his assassin, and the people they worked for.

 

[Birds Away]

Not much chance getting your worldview rocked among the gated communities and gentle roundabouts. Too bad they don't have an exchange program with the Dallas PD.

That's a little over the line.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Communication can still take place. Neutral territory with representatives of each side and mutual assurances. Just like it was done in the old days.

You mean like maybe in, say, Turkey?

As for the rest of the quote, I still don't see how that's going to save a single Syrian family. Just how it will stop Russia from sending diplomats to the area, now how it'll stop sending bombs.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Not much chance getting your worldview rocked among the gated communities and gentle roundabouts. Too bad they don't have an exchange program with the Dallas PD.

Ha, there are people that have wished me harm before, and I'm sure there will be in the future. Thankfully the good lord has kept me safe, even in the land of roundabouts.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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

Individual actors can now commit acts of war? An apparent Turk can commit an "act of war" against a Russian in Turkey due to Russia's actions in Syria, and that's justified? Well, once again that begs 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?

 

[Trigger Time]

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

It's not like the US has never assasinated a politician (possibly our own also), and like you kut I kinda think political and military targets are fair game in war.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It's not like the US has never assasinated a politician (possibly our own also), and like you kut I kinda think political and military targets are fair game in war.

Then I suppose you just shrugged off the attacks on recruiter stations in the US as a normal act of war, no more or less interesting or ethically questionable than a platoon taking fire on the battlefield. Not "terrorism", just the fair targeting of a military target during a time of war.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Individual actors can now commit acts of war? An apparent Turk can commit an "act of war" against a Russian in Turkey due to Russia's actions in Syria, and that's justified? Well, once again that begs 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?

In war, it's difficult to say what is unjustified. And yes, an individual can commit an active of war, if representing an opposing combatant.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Then I suppose you just shrugged off the attacks on recruiter stations in the US as a normal act of war, no more or less interesting or ethically questionable than a platoon taking fire on the battlefield. Not "terrorism", just the fair targeting of a military target during a time of war.

Morally reprehensible certainly. But once can't tie morality with war...well, not if they want to be successful.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Morally reprehensible certainly. But once can't tie morality with war...well, not if they want to be successful.

Why is it morally reprehensible when the Russian ambassador had it coming? And why won't you answer how many innocents a government must kill before non-state actors can start picking off their non-combatant personnel? And "representing an opposing combatant"? I just declare myself a representative of whatever action and I'm good?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why is it morally reprehensible when the Russian ambassador had it coming? And why won't you answer how many innocents a government must kill before non-state actors can start picking off their non-combatant personnel? And "representing an opposing combatant"? I just declare myself a representative of whatever action and I'm good?

I don't think "justified" is the same thing as "had it coming." To answer your question about non-state actors picking off min-combatant personnel. That depends completely on the seriousness of the conflict. If I was an everyday citizen living in a Russian occupied portion of America, I would feel myself completely justified in attacking any person, place, or thing that dealt with the smooth operation of the offending government... combatants or not.

 

[Route 45]

That's a little over the line.

Depends on where your line is. I'm not the one that's cool with assassination of non-combatants. I wasn't wishing harm on anyone....merely suggesting that one may have a different perspective working around officers who were actually affected by targeted assassinations. (Hence the worldview comment) I didn't say that I wished for an exchange program AND a time machine.

I've worked in LE, and have friends and family in LE. There is nothing more disgusting to me than someone who wears a badge and supports the activities of BLM.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't think "justified" is the same thing as "had it coming."

Of course you don't. What does "fair game" mean? The attack happened in Turkey, not a "Russian occupied area", so again failing to see the relevance of the new location of the goal posts to justify the assassination of a diplomat.

Anyone else notice how different the conversation is here than, say, Benghazi? Oh, wait, Kut, also "fair game"? Storming an embassy and killing a diplomatic mission, as long as the actor reasonably believed that the government it represented killed "X" number of innocents (and I guess "X" is up to the individual to decide as well), totally...fair game.

All on the justification that if they aren't following the rules, we don't have to either. By the way, how many people do you arrest that were following the rules? What's that mean for law enforcement?

We have a man who is supposed to stand for law and order stating that an ambassador is fair game for assassination. It's a brave new world out there.
Glad I'm not Marion County ambassador to the Arts District.

Yep, completely fair game. If you can't play by the rules, why should anyone else?

Nothing is a moral atrocity as long as the other guy is the bad guy...if you want to win. What a neat little path to tap dance down.

 

[Woobie]

Then I suppose you just shrugged off the attacks on recruiter stations in the US as a normal act of war, no more or less interesting or ethically questionable than a platoon taking fire on the battlefield. Not "terrorism", just the fair targeting of a military target during a time of war.

Shrugged off? No. Because we were attacked by our enemy. But it's an attack on troops. And we answer their attacks.

This isn't some pie in the sky vision where we sit on the sidelines and declare certain killings as decent and honorable, and others as not quite decent and dishonorable. This is war. You kill or you are killed. If that makes you squeamish, go hang with the Quakers and the rest of us will cover your six. It's not cool, it isn't glamorous, no shining knights with banners unfurled. It is human beings going to great lengths and expending vast resources and energy to impose their will on other humans. It is sad processions. It is mothers being burned to death shielding their children. It is disfigured men. It is bloated corpses in the street. It is men weeping as they gasp away the last of their young lives. It is boys leaving home, leaving the best part of themselves in a far off place, and returning as hollow men. It is maimed children. It is flags on coffins for the few casualties who were lucky enough to have the opportunity to fight. No, if you are at war, you make it stop as quickly as possible. This is the only humanitarian policy.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Shrugged off? No. Because we were attacked by our enemy. But it's an attack on troops. And we answer their attacks.

This isn't some pie in the sky vision where we sit on the sidelines and declare certain killings as decent and honorable, and others as not quite decent and dishonorable. This is war. You kill or you are killed. If that makes you squeamish, go hang with the Quakers and the rest of us will cover your six. It's not cool, it isn't glamorous, no shining knights with banners unfurled. It is human beings going to great lengths and expending vast resources and energy to impose their will on other humans. It is sad processions. It is mothers being burned to death shielding their children. It is disfigured men. It is bloated corpses in the street. It is men weeping as they gasp away the last of their young lives. It is boys leaving home, leaving the best part of themselves in a far off place, and returning as hollow men. It is maimed children. It is flags on coffins for the few casualties who were lucky enough to have the opportunity to fight. No, if you are at war, you make it stop as quickly as possible. This is the only humanitarian policy.

War is hell. Let's kill the diplomats. That makes war stop faster. If you don't agree, you're a pacifist.

I bow to your logic.

 

[Woobie]

War is hell. Let's kill the diplomats. That makes war stop faster. If you don't agree, you're a pacifist.

I bow to your logic.

Actually in this case they were stupid. But to protest the killing of an agent of you enemy on some moral grounds is ludicrous.

It doesn't make you a pacifist. It makes you someone who doesn't realize that the logical conclusion of your position is the protraction of the disaster that war is. It is the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld philosophy of warfare. That makes your idea of what war is dangerous, and you're better off keeping your ideas between yourself and the Quakers. Or Amish if you prefer.