Russian ambassador shot!

[Tombs]

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.)



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

Of course their actions are terrorism if they seek to implement political change through terrorizing the people of that nation. One man's "liberators" are another man's terrorists.

 

[Woobie]

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.

Sounds like murder if they were innocent bystanders. That doesn't preclude terrorism, btw. T.Lex's Vinn Diagrams and all that.

 

[Woobie]

I'm going to get in my way-back machine. Anyone want to join me? We're headed to Paris, France, and the time is January 1793. I wonder what I will find when I get there...

 

[T.Lex]

Of course their actions are terrorism if they seek to implement political change through terrorizing the people of that nation. One man's "liberators" are another man's terrorists.

Happy to explore this!

So, the US gov't's drone strikes have taken out civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Terrorism?

I'm going to get in my way-back machine. Anyone want to join me? We're headed to Paris, France, and the time is January 1793. I wonder what I will find when I get there...

People singing Andrew Lloyd Webber-esque in English?

No, wait... that was later.

 

[Woobie]

People singing Andrew Lloyd Webber-esque in English?

No, wait... that was later.

I don't know, but that sounds miserable.

 

[T.Lex]

I don't know, but that sounds miserable.

Really not that bad. Anne Hathaway more than makes up for Russell Crowe.

 

[Woobie]

I'm going to get in my way-back machine. Anyone want to join me? We're headed to Paris, France, and the time is January 1793. I wonder what I will find when I get there...

For those of you who made the journey with me, welcome to Paris! Don't mind the smell. I hope you enjoyed the in-flight movie. That was not a Ken Burns documentary. We actually traveled through the American Civil War.

We can discuss that violence at a later date, but for now I would like to direct your attention to the man at center stage. For you beer lovers, this man's grandfather was known as the Sun King. But the object of our current interest is Louis XVI, recently deposed king of France. This angry mob is about to remove his head for political reasons. The Paris Commune has become impatient with the provisional government set up in the wake of the fall of the monarchy.

But that's what's going on. I would like to hear your opinions on what is happening.

 

[Woobie]

Really not that bad. Anne Hathaway more than makes up for Russell Crowe.

I always thought she was overly skinny (probably just right for a role in les mis) but she gets more attractive as she gets older.

Since I haven't seen it, I won't presume to judge it. But I had to use the word anyway.

 

[T.Lex]

For those of you who made the journey with me, welcome to Paris! Don't mind the smell. I hope you enjoyed the in-flight movie. That was not a Ken Burns documentary. We actually traveled through the American Civil War.

(Which would've had its own opportunities for discussion of "terrorism" as a military tactic.)

We can discuss that violence at a later date, but for now I would like to direct your attention to the man at center stage. For you beer lovers, this man's grandfather was known as the Sun King. But the object of our current interest is Louis XVI, recently deposed king of France. This angry mob is about to remove his head for political reasons. The Paris Commune has become impatient with the provisional government set up in the wake of the fall of the monarchy.

But that's what's going on. I would like to hear your opinions on what is happening.

I'll just watch for now.

 

[Woobie]

(Which would've had its own opportunities for discussion of "terrorism" as a military tactic.)

Hey, we're getting there! So much to discuss

 

[AmmoManAaron]

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.

I basically agree. BTW - Too much ink has been spilled at high levels in various governments discussing whether ISIS is or is not a government and a nation state, just wipe them out already!

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.

^^^This seems to be the most pertinent fact in the discussion^^^

Sounds like murder if they were innocent bystanders. That doesn't preclude terrorism, btw. T.Lex's Vinn Diagrams and all that.

I support the Venn Diagram and it being both murder and terrorism.

I'm going to get in my way-back machine. Anyone want to join me? We're headed to Paris, France, and the time is January 1793. I wonder what I will find when I get there...

Sorry, I don't know enough about French history during that time. I know it was very turbulent and there were many factions involved.

(Which would've had its own opportunities for discussion of "terrorism" as a military tactic.)


I'll just watch for now.

A military tactic perhaps, but is it a just and moral one? I think that is the heart of the matter. The Nazis "terror bombed" London, and as much as that sucks I think it is a relatively more moral military tactic (seeing how at least some of those people worked in war material producing factories) than the institutional rape that the Romans used as a military tactic against subjugated people. So where does assassination/murder of ambassadors fall on the spectrum? Am I understanding correctly that some on INGO view any military tactic (including whacking ambassadors) as moral even if it is not necessarily wise? Would raping a foreign female leader also qualify as a moral military tactic? (These questions are not necessarily directed at you T.Lex, just using your post as a springboard to more accurately address the discussion.)

 

[T.Lex]

I basically agree. BTW - Too much ink has been spilled at high levels in various governments discussing whether ISIS is or is not a government and a nation state, just wipe them out already!

I absolutely agree with the spirit of this. Heck, let's even call it a policy.

But, there are practicalities. If Daesh is not a nation-state, then we need permission from whoever IS the geographic nation-state for operations. Like Syria. If we don't get diplomatic cover, then we essentially go to war with Syria (and her allies) to attack Daesh.

^^^This seems to be the most pertinent fact in the discussion^^^

If understood in context.

Plus, he had at least a partial magazine left, and didn't appear to shoot any non-Russian gov't civilians. If the goal was to terrorize, he missed a perfect opportunity.

A military tactic perhaps, but is it a just and moral one? I think that is the heart of the matter. The Nazis "terror bombed" London, and as much as that sucks I think it is a relatively more moral military tactic (seeing how at least some of those people worked in war material producing factories) than the institutional rape that the Romans used as a military tactic against subjugated people. So where does assassination/murder of ambassadors fall on the spectrum? Am I understanding correctly that some on INGO view any military tactic (including whacking ambassadors) as moral even if it is not necessarily wise? Would raping a foreign female leader also qualify as a moral military tactic? (These questions are not necessarily directed at you T.Lex, just using your post as a springboard to more accurately address the discussion.)

I have absolutely no problem being a springboard. In fact, I would encourage it.

Rape is not a military tactic. Killing a combatant, or wounding her, would be. Killing or wounding a civilian government agent probably is.

I think ambassador-level political appointees of a combatant state are high enough to be considered political targets. They are generally appointed directly by the executive and are policy-implementors.

 

[Woobie]

A military tactic perhaps, but is it a just and moral one? I think that is the heart of the matter. The Nazis "terror bombed" London, and as much as that sucks I think it is a relatively more moral military tactic (seeing how at least some of those people worked in war material producing factories) than the institutional rape that the Romans used as a military tactic against subjugated people. So where does assassination/murder of ambassadors fall on the spectrum? Am I understanding correctly that some on INGO view any military tactic (including whacking ambassadors) as moral even if it is not necessarily wise? Would raping a foreign female leader also qualify as a moral military tactic? (These questions are not necessarily directed at you T.Lex, just using your post as a springboard to more accurately address the discussion.)

How is an ambassador, a person who specifically works to assert his nation's influence over your own, different from the soldier who, while firing his rifle, wields much less capability to bring about your demise? The ambassador is simply an agent of the state, and he is off-limits only as far as mutual accords establish. There is no moral law that protects him of all people, even more than a head of state.

How many INGOers would support the assassination of Assad? Or Erdogan? Or Putin?

I'm interested to see in this "moral" warfare, how the bombing of thousands of innocents is better than the killing of one state actor. I don't see how rape could be used to further the interest of a state.

This reticence to kill diplomats is based upon the misunderstanding of why they are traditionally off limits, blended with a healthy dose of Hollywood-defined properly waged war.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

 

[T.Lex]

Guard on the left.

LMAO

Thinking, "Oh snap, Putin's right f'n behind me."

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Guard on the left.

LMAO

Thinking, "Oh snap, Putin's right f'n behind me."

I noticed that too. Otherwise a good picture of a somber moment.

 

[Cpt Caveman]

Having Putin behind you is scary. Even to Russians.

 

[vitamink]

The guy behind Putins shoulder is ready for some pay back.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The guy behind Putins shoulder is ready for some pay back.

No, he's thinking about Marty McFly, and about to yell "slacker."

 

[miguel]

For those of you who made the journey with me, welcome to Paris! Don't mind the smell. I hope you enjoyed the in-flight movie. That was not a Ken Burns documentary. We actually traveled through the American Civil War.

We can discuss that violence at a later date, but for now I would like to direct your attention to the man at center stage. For you beer lovers, this man's grandfather was known as the Sun King. But the object of our current interest is Louis XVI, recently deposed king of France. This angry mob is about to remove his head for political reasons. The Paris Commune has become impatient with the provisional government set up in the wake of the fall of the monarchy.

But that's what's going on. I would like to hear your opinions on what is happening.

Revolution. Crimes against the Crown. The beginning of internationalist douchbaggery.