Russian ambassador shot!

[Woobie]

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.

To be clear, I'm not arguing the intelligence of this move. I think it was stupid. I'm only arguing the morality of it. You're probably, right. Erdogan is probably the big winner here. He gains solidarity with the Russians. I'll be interested to see if he tries to annex any of Syria. If Assad weakens, he may incur into Syrian territory under the guise of his Kurdish problem. If he gets support from the Russians, it will be hard to stop him.

 

[Kutnupe14]

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.

So it's ok to harm other people, related to your enemy, just not the diplomats?

 

[Woobie]

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.

Our founders were too smart to do that. But they did engage in guerilla warfare and the torture of Torries. The main point being that they were not a legitimate government at the time.

 

[T.Lex]

[I can't believe I'm doing this again.]

Generally, nation-states can't do "terrorism." They can do war crimes. They can sponsor terrorist organizations. But, generally, "terrorism" is an act by an individual or non-nation-state group to use violence against civilian targets to achieve political goals by destabilizing the population.

AQ's 9/11 attacks: terrorism.
US bombing of a hospital: not terrorism.

The ambassador (either the Turkish or American), while militarily a civilian/non-combatant, is a political target as he carries out the political objectives of his superiors in his home government.

So, probably not terrorism. It does not appear that any actual civilians were targeted (in either attack involving ambassadors), which further removes it from terrorism.

One of the remaining questions is whether the shooters involved were acting on behalf of a nation-state (further removing the actions from "terrorism") or acting alone or on behalf of a non-nation-state group.

And yes, killing diplomats significantly reduces the odds of a diplomatic resolution of whatever the grievances are.

 

[Trigger Time]

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.

i haven't been following the story honestly. It's just more halalalalalas killing. But if the guy (shooter) represented an actual govt then I view this as an act of war.
im not condoning it. I'd wipe Syria back to the Stone Age personally and I hope that's what Russia does. I'm tired of hearing the word seria. I'd rather hear glass parking lot.

the terrorist (Isis inspired) attacks you mention on US soil is from terrorists and not a govt.
i never viewed the taliban as a ligitimate govt either until obama sat down and broke bread with them like a ***** and got fooled. But also legitimized them.

 

[Woobie]

Obama's was not the first administration to court the Taliban.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

So it's ok to harm other people, related to your enemy, just not the diplomats?

I never weighed in one way or the other. I was just pointing out that our Founding Fathers specifically did NOT do that despite not being a "legitimate government" at the time and despite fighting a nonconventional war.

Our founders were too smart to do that. But they did engage in guerilla warfare and the torture of Torries. The main point being that they were not a legitimate government at the time.

Too smart or too moral? I suspect a bit of both. My point is that even if they weren't a legitimate government at the time AND they were fighting an unconventional war, they still didn't kill British diplomats and on the contrary did engage in civilized prisoner exchanges. My comments are only intended to show that the situation in 1770s North America and 2016 Syria are not equivalent. People who aspire to be, or form, a legitimate government do not assassinate diplomats or engage in similar acts of terrorism (torture for the sake of information not withstanding since pretty much all governments do it). It is also worth noting that terrorists are generally NOT negotiated with whereas true revolutionary movements are often negotiated with if they achieve a degree of success on the battlefield and legitimacy among the population. It is obvious to me that ISIS are a bunch of terrorists for any number of reasons, one of the lesser being assassination of diplomats. Feel free to disagree, but I've thought about the differences.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Obama's was not the first administration to court the Taliban.

Do you consider the Taliban to be terrorists or a government? Seems to me they were and still are a government (despite being a rather nasty bunch). The U.S. installed a new government after invading, but that government is teetering and the Taliban are resurgent. As you noted, they negotiate and I would say that they have support among the populace (whether we like it or not).

And before anyone tries equating them, Al Qaeda is not the same as the Taliban.

 

[Woobie]

I never weighed in one way or the other. I was just pointing out that our Founding Fathers specifically did NOT do that despite not being a "legitimate government" at the time and despite fighting a nonconventional war.



Too smart or too moral? I suspect a bit of both. My point is that even if they weren't a legitimate government at the time AND they were fighting an unconventional war, they still didn't kill British diplomats and on the contrary did engage in civilized prisoner exchanges. My comments are only intended to show that the situation in 1770s North America and 2016 Syria are not equivalent. People who aspire to be, or form, a legitimate government do not assassinate diplomats or engage in similar acts of terrorism (torture for the sake of information not withstanding since pretty much all governments do it). It is also worth noting that terrorists are generally NOT negotiated with whereas true revolutionary movements are often negotiated with if they achieve a degree of success on the battlefield and legitimacy among the population. It is obvious to me that ISIS are a bunch of terrorists for any number of reasons, one of the lesser being assassination of diplomats. Feel free to disagree, but I've thought about the differences.

Well certainly an aspiring government should not kill diplomats. Machiavelli would roll over in his grave. It isn't a matter of morality. Diplomats are agents of the enemy state. But you need credibility upon your ascendency to power. Killing diplomats doesn't help, unless of course it does. But you'd better be sure.

If the situation is different in 1770's America vs 2010's Near East, then it is a matter of practicality. Morality is not situational.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Well certainly an aspiring government should not kill diplomats. Machiavelli would roll over in his grave. It isn't a matter of morality. Diplomats are agents of the enemy state. But you need credibility upon your ascendency to power. Killing diplomats doesn't help, unless of course it does. But you'd better be sure.

If the situation is different in 1770's America vs 2010's Near East, then it is a matter of practicality. Morality is not situational.

Fair enough, but differentiating the motivations (practicality vs. morality) of various groups across cultures and throughout time seems like a futile exercise in psychology.

 

[Tombs]

[I can't believe I'm doing this again.]

Generally, nation-states can't do "terrorism." They can do war crimes. They can sponsor terrorist organizations. But, generally, "terrorism" is an act by an individual or non-nation-state group to use violence against civilian targets to achieve political goals by destabilizing the population.

AQ's 9/11 attacks: terrorism.
US bombing of a hospital: not terrorism.

The ambassador (either the Turkish or American), while militarily a civilian/non-combatant, is a political target as he carries out the political objectives of his superiors in his home government.

So, probably not terrorism. It does not appear that any actual civilians were targeted (in either attack involving ambassadors), which further removes it from terrorism.

One of the remaining questions is whether the shooters involved were acting on behalf of a nation-state (further removing the actions from "terrorism") or acting alone or on behalf of a non-nation-state group.

And yes, killing diplomats significantly reduces the odds of a diplomatic resolution of whatever the grievances are.

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun

• the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

 

[T.Lex]

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun

• the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Google definition?

The fact is that there is no international consensus agreement as to what the definition is among governments, or even entities within the same government. (The FBI and Congress have different definitions.)

Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

Part of the problem, Tombs, is that government acts would be classified as terrorism under your posted definition. Governments don't want that.

 

[Woobie]

Do you consider the Taliban to be terrorists or a government? Seems to me they were and still are a government (despite being a rather nasty bunch). The U.S. installed a new government after invading, but that government is teetering and the Taliban are resurgent. As you noted, they negotiate and I would say that they have support among the populace (whether we like it or not).

And before anyone tries equating them, Al Qaeda is not the same as the Taliban.

I would say they are a government, such as they are.

 

[T.Lex]

How about this - is ISIS a government?

(How's that for a pot stirring?)

 

[steveh_131]

Anomaly #1: 'Turkey'

Does this nation even exist? If it does, who decided to name it 'turkey', and why?

 

[1DOWN4UP]

I have not read the last 5 pages but to the ones who seem to feel that the assassination is not a act of terrorism,or is acceptable , what is your opinion on the three innocent people who also took a bullet after the ambassador already was dead? Is that also OK?

 

[Woobie]

How about this - is ISIS a government?

(How's that for a pot stirring?)

Yep, I figured we'd get here eventually.

I think they govern inasmuch as they have asserted their control over a geographical area and group of people. Is that all a government is? Some would say it is illegitimate government since they are asserting themselves in places and over people to which other governments previously laid claim. By our founders definition, they are an unjust government (if government they are), since they have not derived their powers from the consent of the governed.

The longer they hold sway without being run off, the more likely they are to be recognized as legitimate by other powers.

 

[churchmouse]

I have pulled 3 posts from this thread. All the same member.


Time outs will be issued.

That is all.

 

[Woobie]

I have not read the last 5 pages but to the ones who seem to feel that the assination is not a act of terrorism,or is acceptable act of terrorism, what is your opinion on the three innocent people who also took a bullet after the ambassador already was dead?

Were they agents of the Russian government, which was (ostensibly) the target of this attack?

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Were they agents of the Russian government, which was (ostensibly) the target of this attack?

As I understand,they were Innocent visitors at the art gallery.
The gunman shouted about Aleppo in Turkish, and also yelled "Allahu akbar," the Arabic phrase for "God is great," continuing in Arabic: "We are the descendants of those who supported the Prophet Muhammad, for jihad".Sounds like terrorism to me.