Human rights are not just about this individual but all of us.
If DT can go after him with impunity, he can go after you and me. Sure, he'll never have heard of any of us but the principle applies.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
If DT can go after him with impunity, he can go after you and me. Sure, he'll never have heard of any of us but the principle applies.
A regular soldier on active service engaged in war against the USA in the US war zone of Iraq, and known to be responsible for many deaths of US soldiers and civilians during his and his country's ongoing long term war against the USA.
He was killed by his enemy while on active military service in that war zone, so that was neither assassination or murder.
.
I think mention of human rights in any war situation muddies the subject. Either war is legitimate, thus excluding human rights in numerous ways, or human rights are paramount and no war is justified at any time in any way.
There can be no such thing as human rights only applying at convenient times on convenient occasions, since who decides the convenience?
.
It hasn’t even begun has it? And you say let’s move on?
Of you go then, what will trump do next? He is the menace, when Iran responds he is going to do something dangerous
you could hypothetically reverse the situation and let's pretend that Iranian or Russian operatives assassinate an ex US president or a high ranking retired general because his hand had blood of their countrymen.
Should the UN ignore such an act?
We have international law to limit 'an eye for an eye'.
If I was organising atracks on American soldiers (and civilians) I, d expect a drone to be loitering above Rotherham and deservedly so. Live by the sword and all that.
I expect that the USA / Trump will strike back if Iran chooses to retaliate. If Iran chooses not to do anything, I doubt that they face any further military action.
We need to keep in mind that the man killed in this action has facilitated the deaths and maiming of British and American military personnel. Now that his threat has been eliminated, I can’t see any need for an escalation, unless Iran chooses that path.
That is completely different and ignores everything I've posted. That would not be done on a war footing, so would be an assassination and neither the US president nor a retired general would be serving soldiers.
This killing was done by the US in a US war zone against a serving soldier of the known enemy actively fighting them there. This therefore has all the legitimacy of all the others of the enemy legally killed there.
You, Danidl and OG are arguing this issue on moral grounds, one I morally agree with, but you only drawn to it by the significance of the killed person. As I've shown you are mistaken in that stand.
If that were not true, you would have been protesting at every one of the many thousands of deaths at US military hands there.
.
Last edited:
With respect that isn't how the world works is it? this character was pretty much a hero to many of the locals, and being killed like a dog casually it would seem to them on the whim of the American President will cause them to exact revenge.
And now the Americans and of course us are being asked to leave the country by the Iraqi parliament.
So bang goes the war against ISIS
Truly an error of judgement on a par with Lincoln's to go to the Opera.
I do think Americans have a different view on Human Rights to most others. Yes, they have an extremely strong stance on protecting Huaman Rights and covering requirements to be seen to be in agreement with them but if people are seen to transgress those rules they see any actions in dealing them as legitimate. Case in point, Bin Laden. Suspect had SAS caught him he would have been arrested and put before some court.
They deal with criminals in their own country in a similar fashion. The death penalty I, d guess contravines all human rights. In the 30's Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker were literally ambushed by federal agents and assasinated. I dont actually believe our police would have done that even then. (but perbaps I, m being a touch niave)
Should folk lose protection of human rights after heinous crimes. I suspect so.
But that doesnt mean this incident wont lead to escalation,which is the worry. (but should it be. Right is right?)
They deal with criminals in their own country in a similar fashion. The death penalty I, d guess contravines all human rights. In the 30's Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker were literally ambushed by federal agents and assasinated. I dont actually believe our police would have done that even then. (but perbaps I, m being a touch niave)
Should folk lose protection of human rights after heinous crimes. I suspect so.
But that doesnt mean this incident wont lead to escalation,which is the worry. (but should it be. Right is right?)
Seriously? But that presumably is what those dudes in Sandhurst, Moscow, China, North Korea, Mexico ,maybe even Ottawa spend their weekends planning as homework assignments,when they have spent the weekdays creating doomsday scenarios for all their other "friends "..
Bagdad airport is not in a war zone, Iran is no more at war with the US at the moment than Russia. Trump always picks on a tiny military power, something to do with his small hands.
You are being a touch .... The structure of the response to the Bloody Sunday march in Derry, which was 40 years later than the Bonnie and Clyde incident illustrates that. The behaviour of the police/ army squad in Gibraltar another decade on shows that they had not learned. Both of these Human rights violations had extremely serious repercussions
The whole of Iraq remains a war zone for the US military who defend against attacks on themselves and Iraqis in any area of the country, the enemy not excluding anywhere, including airports.
Iran is at war with the USA both by statements and actions. Germany wasn't at war with the UK in 1939, far from it. But it became at war with us when we declared war on them and attacked. A state of war doen't require any agreement, it often results from actions by one party.
The USA has always picked on smaller countries, Mexico, Spain, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia and various Central and South American countries. Trump is merely true to type.
.
..Sorry Flecc, but this time you are incorrect.
1. The event occurred on the land area of a sovereign power .. Iraq
2. It was not authorised by that power.
3. It would be viewed as a terrorism attack by anyone else.
4. That the individual targeted was a serving officer of a country the USA has not declared war on, makes him an innocent..he may well have been a bloodthirsty bigot . So it was also an act of aggression against another sovereign state.
I am not at this post concerned with the morality of killing ,but its international lawfulness. I cannot see it as other than unlawful. I agree that the USA ,has done worse in recent days, including other attacks in Iraq.
I would if there was even a remote chance that anyone would listen!