Russian ambassador shot!

[Kutnupe14]

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.

What does BLM have to do with any of this? This thread is about the assassination of an ambassador. I have spoken about the assassination of the ambassador, in a logical manner, and avoided personal narratives about people.
You've implied wishing me harm...or at least that's how I took it, over a situation that isn't even related to this thread. I've made a concerted effort not to go "old Kut," on people and stick to subject matter. However, it seems some are having issue doing the same. Stick to the subject, and avoid personal insults, or remove yourself from the thread.

 

[Kutnupe14]

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?



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.

Benghazi? I'm missing the point? The major issue with Benghazi was the failure to protect it adequately, not whether or not the attack was justified.
Perhaps we should should just agree to disagree, because I completely believe that in armed conflict, nothing is really off the table. In fact, the worse it is the quicker it will be resolved.

 

[Route 45]

What does BLM have to do with any of this? This thread is about the assassination of an ambassador. I have spoken about the assassination of the ambassador, in a logical manner, and avoided personal narratives about people.
You've implied wishing me harm...or at least that's how I took it, over a situation that isn't even related to this thread. I've made a concerted effort not to go "old Kut," on people and stick to subject matter. However, it seems some are having issue doing the same. Stick to the subject, and avoid personal insults, or remove yourself from the thread.

I am sorry if you think that I wished you harm. I truly did not. I only wished that you could work with officers more directly affected by the results of the BLM narrative. Maybe to gain a different perspective.

I consider the advocacy of the assassinations of non-combatants to directly parallel the attitude of the BLM movement, which is why I brought it up as a more relatable example of the end result of such advocacy. It's not a personal attack, it's a legitimate comparison of past stated views with a current event. Targeted killings of civilians are targeted killings of civilians, no matter who is doing them. It seems that the subject has turned to whether or not the killing of non-combatants is cool, and it's not me who turned the conversation.

And I will gladly modify my posts or leave the thread when a mod tells me to. But you, kind sir, are out of your jurisdiction.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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.

Individuals killing diplomats in other nations is good practice that shortens wars and saves families. Not killing diplomats is dangerous. You guys win.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I am sorry if you think that I wished you harm. I truly did not. I only wished that you could work with officers more directly affected by the results of the BLM narrative. Maybe to gain a different perspective.

I consider the advocacy of the assassinations of non-combatants to directly parallel the attitude of the BLM movement, which is why I brought it up as a more relatable example of the end result of such advocacy. It's not a personal attack, it's a legitimate comparison of past stated views with a current event. Targeted killings of civilians are targeted killings of civilians, no matter who is doing them. It seems that the subject has turned to whether or not the killing of non-combatants is cool, and it's not me who turned the conversation.

And I will gladly modify my posts or leave the thread when a mod tells me to. But you, kind sir, are out of your jurisdiction.

Yeah, ok. If you say so.

 

[printcraft]

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.

Sounds like terrorism.........

 

[bwframe]

 

[Woobie]

Individuals killing diplomats in other nations is good practice that shortens wars and saves families. Not killing diplomats is dangerous. You guys win.

I think your assessment of this situation is accurate. They are inviting Turkey into the conflict against them. It's pretty stupid. If it does shorten the war, it will be in a way they don't like.

But to take a principled position against this has no basis. Your moral high horse is actually just a hobby horse. How is an agent of your enemy somehow off limits? That has never been the case. It isn't done much because it is usually unnecessary, stupid, or invites retaliation. The exchange of diplomats is something that is done by treaty. Diplomatic immunity or privilege is honored because you don't want your own people and documents falling into peril. It is a MAD arrangement of sorts. If I have no treaty with you, but I do with Kut, how is it that you presume to be off limits to me? And why should the Syrian Rebels grant privilege to an enemy nation with whom they have no diplomatic exchange?

Edit: I would also add that by killing a diplomat, you do nothing to endear the rest of the world, or to invite trust. It might be hard getting people to exchange diplomats. This is stupid.

It could also be seen as an act of desperation, which might also cue your enemy into your weakness. In such an instance, it would also be stupid.

 

[Birds Away]

Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Woobie]

Absolutely ridiculous.

If you think killing a diplomat is ridiculous, you don't want to know what the US is involved in.

 

[Birds Away]

If you think killing a diplomat is ridiculous, you don't want to know what the US is involved in.

and you think you're the one to catch me up on what's happening in the big bad world?

 

[Woobie]

and you think you're the one to catch me up on what's happening in the big bad world?

Not at all. But it amazes me that people seem shocked by this kind of stuff. As though this were somehow unique.

 

[Birds Away]

In a conventional nation/state v. nation/state war it would be very unusual. As has been stated it imperils one's own diplomatic corps. But this isn't that type of conflict. This is an ideology fighting against virtually all the nation-states. In such a conflict nothing is off limits. But, to say that a diplomat is a legitimate target is still ridiculous. He was no more a legitimate target than the innocent German civilians at that Christmas marketplace, or the French people at the club, or the Americans in Orlando. Saying anything else is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[T.Lex]

Haven't we discussed Aquinas' idea of Just War on INGO before?

Anyway, interesting take from the Beeb:
Russia and Turkey remain close despite ambassador's murder - BBC News

Closing line:

The fundamental fact holding these two forces together is that, lacking many other friends in the world at the moment, Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan need each other.

 

[Woobie]

In a conventional nation/state v. nation/state war it would be very unusual. As has been stated it imperils one's own diplomatic corps. But this isn't that type of conflict. This is an ideology fighting against virtually all the nation-states. In such a conflict nothing is off limits. But, to say that a diplomat is a legitimate target is still ridiculous. He was no more a legitimate target than the innocent German civilians at that Christmas marketplace, or the French people at the club, or the Americans in Orlando. Saying anything else is absolutely ridiculous.

None of your examples are agents of their respective governments. The killing of diplomats between conventional enemies would be unusual for practical reasons, not moral ones. But the killing of scientists, espionage and such is rather commonplace.

By the way, I will keep this in mind the next time we talk about ideologues who used unconventional methods to overthrow a conventional power. You know, the American Revolution.

 

[Woobie]

Haven't we discussed Aquinas' idea of Just War on INGO before?

Anyway, interesting take from the Beeb:
Russia and Turkey remain close despite ambassador's murder - BBC News

Closing line:

Yes, I think it is the Syrian Rebels who need to worry about what happened, not the Turks.

 

[T.Lex]

Yes, I think it is the Syrian Rebels who need to worry about what happened, not the Turks.

I would only append the Kurds to the group of people that should be worried, to the extent they aren't fully captured by the "Syrian Rebels" label.

Venn diagrams can be tricky.

 

[Woobie]

I would only append the Kurds to the group of people that should be worried, to the extent they aren't fully captured by the "Syrian Rebels" label.

Venn diagrams can be tricky.

Ahh yes the Kurds. How could I forget. Talk about not having any loyal friends.

 

[Birds Away]

None of your examples are agents of their respective governments. The killing of diplomats between conventional enemies would be unusual for practical reasons, not moral ones. But the killing of scientists, espionage and such is rather commonplace.

By the way, I will keep this in mind the next time we talk about ideologues who used unconventional methods to overthrow a conventional power. You know, the American Revolution.

Exactly my point. But just because we find ourselves fighting against an unconventional foe does not make their targets legitimate. Killing the Russian ambassador does absolutely nothing for the cause of ISIS or Al Qaida. Erdogan is playing both ends against the middle. We'll see if his regime can last to see the endgame whatever that may be.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

By the way, I will keep this in mind the next time we talk about ideologues who used unconventional methods to overthrow a conventional power. You know, the American Revolution.

How is this applicable to the discussion at hand? I'm not aware of the American Revolutionaries killing any British diplomats. In fact, I seem to recall civilized prisoner exchanges which by concept would seem to run counter to the killing of diplomatic staff.