European Tribune

Display:
Since when has it become okay to kill people simply because they behave like assholes or complicit in war crimes (for whatever reason). With this logic, you could almost say that 9/11 was okay, too. Don't you see that?

"If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tzu
by Turambar (sersguenda at hotmail com) on Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 at 03:33:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Uh... What do you think we should have been done with al-Qaida and the Taliban, if not kill them?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 at 03:53:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Taleban? none of our business. It's the internal politics of a nation state, Where do we get the right to chose another countries government.

 Al Quaeda? We could always have shown the evidence we had to the Taleban, and allowed a trial in a neutral country. After all if we're sop convinced we're right it wouldn't have hurt.

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 at 03:59:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Trial in a neutral country?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 at 04:02:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
well I suppose that bush "wasn't too concerned about him"  so A trial would just be an expense.  Why not a trial?

or is it just that you think there's nowhere sufficiently neutral?

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 at 04:11:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't even know from what side I should attack this. I mean it's so...

Like law matters an ounce in international relations! Like anyone would trust the verdict! Like al-Qaida wouldn't fight to the death against anyone who tried to arrest them! Like you could turn over evidence without compromising vast amounts of intelligence! Like the Americans would put their indepence in the hands of some international organization, whithout any kind of that precious legitimacy!

Et cetera ad infinitum.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 at 05:40:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
when it mattered. So around 1900.

Gemach, gemach
by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 at 06:32:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If a state wishes to act against an individual, or organisation of Individuals, then they have an Obligation to prove their alegations. Otherwise, if a state isn't willing  to prove its case, then It's Murder Plain and simple. Last time I checked Al-Quaida wasn't a country so appealing to International relations dosn't cut it as a reason. as for American Independence, how does this remove American Independence, and why should US law extend to other countries without them being willing to show a proper range of evidence to obtain extradition?

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.
by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 at 07:38:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Here. Here it is:

Like law matters an ounce in international relations!

The core of the matter. Might makes right.

On this basis, terrorism, genocide and anything the fuck else you like is legal.

Insanity consists of doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting different results.

Vicious idiots and arrogant fools.

t! Like al-Qaida wouldn't fight to the death against anyone who tried to arrest them!

So they die. At least "we" would have  tried to do it right. Instead "we" decided to play their game, legitimising their rules, legitimising them as a worthy opponent of the "West".

Like you could turn over evidence without compromising vast amounts of intelligence!

What's it for if you can't use it?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Mar 3rd, 2008 at 08:31:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, yes. Or a sufficiently neutral US court, if such a thing still exists.

"If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tzu
by Turambar (sersguenda at hotmail com) on Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 at 04:17:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"What do you think we should have been done with al-Qaida and the Taliban, if not kill them?"

Step one might be to stop doing all the stuff that enables them to recruit new members. Like feeding the House of Saud jillions of dollars so they can run a reactionary government and harbor a huge population of unemployable young men. Like not arming and funding the Taliban in the first place as part of a previous crackpot plan to kick the Russians out of Afghanistan. Like not subsidizing western agriculture to the point where the third world farmers have to sell drugs to us to make any money. Like not invading a country because the ruler "tried to kill my daddy" despite the pleas of practically every other country.

With the current strategy, we're creating enemy soldiers faster than we can kill them.

by asdf on Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 at 05:04:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We should of course do all those things too.

But in top of that, after 9/11 some people needed killing.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 at 05:40:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe now that we've had this awesome healing experience of having killed quite a few people, we can start thinking about what exactly we are doing that is serving which interests of ours - in, you know, the good old-fashioned 'rational policy' frame.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 at 05:53:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I would have prefered rational policy from the beginning, but Mr. Monkey made sure that wasn't going to happen. The world would have been a very different place if the President had been Clinton, Gore, Bush I or McCain.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 at 05:59:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Gemach, gemach
by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 at 06:31:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Needed killing?

so whenever there was an IRA attack in the UK, it needed the RAF to drop a large bomb somewhere near the houses of supporters of NORAID?

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Sun Mar 2nd, 2008 at 07:31:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"But in top of that, after 9/11 some people needed killing."

This is a pretty interesting comment. First off, the whole revenge thing is not exactly, you know, whatever. Secondly, if you want to kill people in revenge, you could choose between the perps, or their families, or maybe the (Saudi) government that provided their inspiration. But the U.S. decided to go after Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11.

Thirdly, there is a question of appropriate levels of response. In 9/11 there were about 3000 American fatalities, some of them more awful than others, and all televised (repeatedly). In Iraq so far we have killed over 3000 American soldiers, and wounded about 10,000 (and "wounded" in modern language essentially means "killed" because the minor sort of flesh wounds that used to pump up the casualty figures are mostly avoided because of the widespread use of body armor, the current wounded have no arms, legs, or faces), and we don't count mental wounds or long-term health problems among the casualties. So the true American total casualty figures are certainly over 20,000 people. And then we have killed somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis, depending on whose numbers you want to use. So the current response ratio to 9/11 is around, say, using 600,000:3000, about 200:1.

Is that enough revenge killing yet?

by asdf on Mon Mar 3rd, 2008 at 08:24:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You know as well as I do it's not.

Migeru:

"The war is wrong"

"3,000 Americans died on 9/11"

At that time, the body count in Iraq was reported to be 30,000.

"10 times more people have already died in Iraq. Is that not enough for you?"

"Whatever it takes to make America safe"



We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 3rd, 2008 at 08:29:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.
by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Mar 3rd, 2008 at 08:52:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Realistically speaking? Since the Nuremberg trials. Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating for the death penalty; just stating the obvious.
by The3rdColumn on Tue Mar 4th, 2008 at 01:15:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
Recent Diaries
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series