Split From Corbyn did win/The War On Terrorism

Praktik said:
To refocus your statement ddt probably better to highlight the foreignness of the attack in 2001 - it was the first major successful terrorist attack from foreigners and America went postal! And this may be somewhat distinguishing from the particular histories of ETA or the IRA.
Click to expand...

But that's not true either. Al Qaeda preceded 9/11 with both the USS Cole bombing and the East Africa embassy bombings. And these weren't the first either: there was also the Khobar Towers bombing before that, and the Beirut barracks bombing before that. I probably missed a few others.

Sure, 9/11 was the first major foreign terrorist attack on US soil, but now we've had to add multiple qualifiers to make the original statement true, but each qualifier dilutes the importance of the claim.

I cringe at the thought of what will happen after the next major successful attack from Islamists - it appears most are just hoping for the best and I don't see much commentary on how America could anticipate the next attack and figure out, ahead of time, the best way it should react.
Click to expand...

Here's some interesting commentary on the issue:
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003/09/three-conjectures-pew-poll-finds-40-of.html
Fair warning: it's bleak. But it only really deals with the worst-case scenario.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
I sill repeat my question question which has been carefully ignored.
Is it ok for the Russians (for example) to send a team of special forces in to the USA to execute someone living there if they consider him a terrorist?
Click to expand...
Of course it's ok. The rights of nation states can be summed up in the right of molon labe -- come and take it (if you can).

If Russia is willing to pay the cost to attempt the result, then it's ok for them to try. Just as it's ok for them to send spies, and tap cables, and turn diplomats, etc.

The act itself--assassinating an enemy of the state--may be moral or immoral for various reasons.

Committing the act on foreign soil I would consider to be amoral in principle, and moral or immoral strictly on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps it betrays the trust between the two nations. Perhaps it violates a formal agreement between the two nations. Perhaps it violates such an agreement in order to achieve an even greater good for the actor. Perhaps it is done with such a measure of incompetence as to go against the interests of the actor's citizens, to whom the actor owes a duty. Perhaps it is done for personal reasons of the actor, rather than in the interest of their citizens. Etc.

If not then why is it ok for the USA to do the same?
Click to expand...
It is ok. Because molon labe.
 
Ziggurat said:
Sure, 9/11 was the first major foreign terrorist attack on US soil, but now we've had to add multiple qualifiers to make the original statement true, but each qualifier dilutes the importance of the claim.
Click to expand...

Yes should have added "on US soil", so along with the "foreign" qualifier we have diluted a few steps, but there were nonethless novel qualities to the attacks of 9/11 that did generate a reaction decades of domestic terrorism, and a prior decade of foreign attacks in foreign places never could.
 
Craig B said:
I'm baffled by this. Please explain it before I comment on your post.
Click to expand...

It's the punchline to an old joke. Here's a typical setup:

The Lone Ranger and Tonto are riding along, when suddenly the horizon fills with thousands of screaming indians on the warpath. TLR says, "Well, this doesn't look good. I don't think we're gonna make it out of this alive."

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=330125​

The joke plays on the mistaken assumption that two people have something in common, and therefore share a common cause or common fate.

Citing the punchline in a conversation is a way of signaling the other participant's mistake--the two people do not have the assumed commonality, and therefore the assumed conclusion is false.
 
Craig B said:
I'm baffled by this. Please explain it before I comment on your post.
Click to expand...

It's the punchline of an old joke.

Lone Ranger: Tonto, we're surrounded by Indians!
Tonto: What you mean "we", white man?

The point, in case it still eludes you, is that you speak only for yourself.
 
Antony said:
Let's see - there were 2,977 people killed in the 9/11 attacks, plus the 19 perpetrators. Not only do we know the exact number, but their names are listed; not one of them will be forgotten.

Tragic and appalling, of course - but not more tragic and appalling than the hundreds of thousands of uncounted, unnamed people killed in the wars resulting from the US reaction to 9/11, and the millions more displaced from their homes as refugees.

As long as western countries talk and act as though the only people whose lives and freedoms matter, are people in the west, there will be no solution to terrorism. The terror experienced by Afghan peasants facing US drone attacks, and Palestinians facing Israeli rockets is just as real as that of western businessmen.

Not only that, but one group of people alone suffered more deaths in the fraudulent Iraq war, than those who died in the twin towers: US soldiers. If you are concerned about the lives of our servicemen, then how about calling on politicians to stop sending them all over the world to fight illegal and pointless wars?
Click to expand...

Music to my eyes.

Must be the time of year - that's two magnificent pieces in a row this morning.

Bravo!
 
Giz said:
Britain sponsored the attempt. And I think it's rather a good analogy really.
Click to expand...

No it isn't in 1942 Britain was at war with Germany and fighting them on many fronts.
WW 2 was nothing like the situation with Bin Laden
 
Last edited:
Loss Leader said:
I did agree with this until I saw Zero Dark Thirty. It showed me that the Seals had no real idea what to expect, whether anyone would resist, or who exactly was where. Firing without hesitation was the safest way to conduct the raid. I also don't question the fact that OBL was a legitimate enemy of the US.
Click to expand...

No idea what Zero Dark Thirty refers to, but going by the Wikipedia account - which is referenced in detail to news sources - there was no firefight and bin Laden was helpless. There is no suggestion he was killed because he was "resisting arrest", as has been suggested by commentators here.

This report in particular shows an explicit order simply to kill OBL without attempting to take him alive, alongside an unambiguous appetite among the servicemen chosen:

http://www.politico.com/story/2011/05/exclusive-raid-yields-trove-of-data-054151

Officials described the reaction of the special operators when they were told a number of weeks ago that they had been chosen to train for the mission.

“They were told, ‘We think we found Osama bin Laden, and your job is to kill him,’” an official recalled.

The SEALs started to cheer.​
 
Antony said:
No idea what Zero Dark Thirty refers to, but going by the Wikipedia account - which is referenced in detail to news sources - there was no firefight and bin Laden was helpless. There is no suggestion he was killed because he was "resisting arrest", as has been suggested by commentators here.

This report in particular shows an explicit order simply to kill OBL without attempting to take him alive, alongside an unambiguous appetite among the servicemen chosen:

http://www.politico.com/story/2011/05/exclusive-raid-yields-trove-of-data-054151

Officials described the reaction of the special operators when they were told a number of weeks ago that they had been chosen to train for the mission.

“They were told, ‘We think we found Osama bin Laden, and your job is to kill him,’” an official recalled.

The SEALs started to cheer.​
Click to expand...

An explicit order, huh?

An unnamed official recalls that somebody else said something and still others reacted to it. The passage you quoted doesn't even put the unnamed official in the same room when the things were said and reacted to. It's not even hearsay.

Mind you, I wouldn't object in the slightest if the US military has somebody whose job it is to straight-up assassinate people like Osama Bin Laden. If that somebody is the Navy SEALs, then I say 'godspeed, Navy SEALs.'
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
An explicit order, huh?

An unnamed official recalls that somebody else said something and still others reacted to it. The passage you quoted doesn't even put the unnamed official in the same room when the things were said and reacted to. It's not even hearsay.
Click to expand...

That would be a fair enough point if there were credible reports in support of the opposing view that OBL was shot while "resisting arrest". But there aren't: the reports cited tell the story that the SEALs simply went in, killed OBL's bodyguard (who was the only armed resistance) and then hunted down the remaining 4 people in the building and killed them too. It seems there were weapons in the next room, but OBL was definitely unarmed.

Another detail is that his wife was either trying to protect him, or at worst he tried to hide behind her. So it's reported that he "used her as a human shield" - something that wrongly suggests he was putting up a fight - and which supposedly justifies them murdering her as well.
Mind you, I wouldn't object in the slightest if the US military has somebody whose job it is to straight-up assassinate people like Osama Bin Laden. If that somebody is the Navy SEALs, then I say 'godspeed, Navy SEALs.'
Click to expand...

So what are we arguing about? I've already pointed out that those supporting the killing are quite OK with this extra-judicial execution. Let's not try to make it out to be something it wasn't.
 
Antony said:
I've already pointed out that those supporting the killing are quite OK with this extra-judicial execution.
Click to expand...

As I said before, what do you expect? War is always extrajudicial killing, and the enemy doesn't have to be actively attacking you in order for you to kill them.
 
Ziggurat said:
It's the punchline of an old joke.

Lone Ranger: Tonto, we're surrounded by Indians!
Tonto: What you mean "we", white man?

The point, in case it still eludes you, is that you speak only for yourself.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't elude me. It's simply that where I am, references to the Lone Ranger are not always immediately recognised. Cultural difference thing, I suppose. But once they are kindly explained, we can usually grasp the point.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
No it isn't in 1942 Britain was at war with Germany and fighting them on many fronts.
WW 2 was nothing like the situation with Bin Laden
Click to expand...

Well, the US is at war with Al Quaida and is fighting on multiple fronts... but that's not the key part of the analogy. The key part is: there is an enemy VIP in "hostile" terrain, where a simple attempt to arrest him may be unfeasible. The Heydrich incident shows that in previous instances, democratic states have resorted to "assassinations" and it is seen as justified rather than being carped on as some kind of tragedy.

Corbyn was pathetically wrong about this. But his adherents refuse to admit that their messiah has feet of clay.
 
Giz said:
Well, the US is at war with Al Quaida and is fighting on multiple fronts...
Click to expand...
The USA is not, and cannot be, "at war" with Al Quaida. Al Quaida is not a state but an alleged gang of brigands. The actions of the USA against that gang ought to be regarded as what they are, law enforcement, like international action against piracy at sea, or something of that kind.
 
Craig B said:
No, it doesn't elude me. It's simply that where I am, references to the Lone Ranger are not always immediately recognised. Cultural difference thing, I suppose. But once they are kindly explained, we can usually grasp the point.
Click to expand...

Maybe replace the Indians with celtic fans?
 
Antony said:
Another detail is that his wife was either trying to protect him, or at worst he tried to hide behind her. So it's reported that he "used her as a human shield" - something that wrongly suggests he was putting up a fight - and which supposedly justifies them murdering her as well.
Click to expand...
She wasn't killed...
 
Craig B said:
The USA is not, and cannot be, "at war" with Al Quaida. Al Quaida is not a state but an alleged gang of brigands. The actions of the USA against that gang ought to be regarded as what they are, law enforcement, like international action against piracy at sea, or something of that kind.
Click to expand...

The problem is, Bin Laden had deep connections with the ISI and Afghan government, to the point that military occupation was necessary to dislodge him. And thank you for the hilarious image of PC plod being sent to Afghanistan to give Bin Laden a clip on the ear.

That said, Corbyn's foreign policy would be like that of another English leader: Ethelred the Unready. He preferred to have diplomacy with the men who travelled in funny boats and there was a mutual arrangement for peace, unliek the evil Militaristic Byzantine Empire, who sought to use force.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom