Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: British Isis member Sally Jones 'killed in airstrike with 12-year-old son'

  1. #41
    Educator Evilroddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    811

    Re: British Isis member Sally Jones 'killed in airstrike with 12-year-old son'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Me and mine aren't terrorists. I also know that if someone was gunning for me, I would be as far away from my family as possible, so they wouldn't become collateral damage.
    apdst:

    You yourself may not be a terrorist but you belong to an institution which many around the globe view as a practitioner of state-terror. It does not matter that you would likely reject this characterization, because it is their opinions and not yours which will drive their actions to attack you and yours. Furthermore your own president has said the US should attack the families of terrorists and thus a reciprocal policy of attacking yours might be adopted by your foes, despite your best efforts to remove yourself from proximity to your loved ones. You can't control what ISIL terrorists will do. You do have a say in what your own state does and will do. You should remember that what your state does to foreigners today, it might very well do to Americans tomorrow. So caution and sober restraint now may pay handsome dividends tomorrow for your own liberty and personal safety.

    Cheers.
    Evilroddy.

  2. #42
    Sage
    Fledermaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,846

    Re: British Isis member Sally Jones 'killed in airstrike with 12-year-old son'

    Quote Originally Posted by Evilroddy View Post
    Fledermaus:

    Yes, ISIL is a terrorist organization. You'll get no argument from me on that. That is not the point I am trying to make here. Whether or not there exists an ISIL or any similar organisation is an aside. The point is how the West behaves and conducts itself in the West's struggle against ISIL and its ilk. Extrajudicial killings of non-combatants is wrong. Period. It must stop.

    On the issue of war, ISIL is at war with the state of Iraq and is in part at war with the state of Syria. The US and the West has not declared a war against ISIL and has reached half-way around the world to attack ISIL and others in Iraq and Syria, as part of its efforts to prop up the Iraqi government and undermine the Syrian one. This drive for stabilization/destabilization and support/subornation is born out of the folly of invading Iraq in 2003 and destabilizing the whole Mesopotamian region, so the responsibility for this mess rests in large part with the Coalition and the West for meddling in the first place.

    Even in war it is criminal to target, attack and kill non-combatants, so the issue of defacto war is just a canard to distract from the immorality and illegality of the targeted killings and extrajudicial assassinations of non-combatants by Western forces and intelligence agencies.

    Cheers.
    Evilroddy.
    Extrajudicial killings of TERRORISTS is a good thing....

    She freely joined, aided and abetted a KNOWN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

    As far as "declaring war"? That is a sovereign state to sovereign state issue. Call me once ISIL is a recognized sovereign state.

    You keep going on about "non-combatants"... Last time I checked ISIL is not a signatory on ANY international treaty. Nor are they considered "combatants" in the regular sense. They are a terrorist organization. At the most they fall under unlawful combatant. By definition unlawful combatants (illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant) directly engage in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war.
    “All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
    ― Douglas Adams

  3. #43
    Wrinkly member
    Manc Skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    22,488

    Re: British Isis member Sally Jones 'killed in airstrike with 12-year-old son'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    That kid was spawned by a servent of Satan. It was a legitimate kill.
    Such flexible morality for a so-called Christian.
    Don't work out, work in.

    Never eat anything that's served in a bucket.

  4. #44
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    72,962

    Re: British Isis member Sally Jones 'killed in airstrike with 12-year-old son'

    Quote Originally Posted by Manc Skipper View Post
    Such flexible morality for a so-called Christian.
    You're welcome.

    "Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:"
    Quote Originally Posted by Praxas View Post
    Yeah policy, not ass licking Putin for dirt on Hillary like your hero trump did. Trump supporters are pure garbage and have sold out their country to Russia. They should be ashamed of themselves but the fact they are pure scum prevents it. Each and every trump supporter is an enemy of America.

  5. #45
    Educator Evilroddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    811

    Re: British Isis member Sally Jones 'killed in airstrike with 12-year-old son'

    Quote Originally Posted by Fledermaus View Post
    Extrajudicial killings of TERRORISTS is a good thing....

    She freely joined, aided and abetted a KNOWN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

    As far as "declaring war"? That is a sovereign state to sovereign state issue. Call me once ISIL is a recognized sovereign state.

    You keep going on about "non-combatants"... Last time I checked ISIL is not a signatory on ANY international treaty. Nor are they considered "combatants" in the regular sense. They are a terrorist organization. At the most they fall under unlawful combatant. By definition unlawful combatants (illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant) directly engage in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war.
    Fledermaus:

    Extrajudicial killing of anyone, alleged terrorist or not, is illegal and criminal. It is not a good thing. To advocate for it is irresponsible.

    Sally Jones did not engage in direct combat and was therefore a civilian and not an unlawful combatant without privilege. Advocacy for a cause, even a very, very bad cause, does not equate to direct combat under arms. By such flawed reasoning doctors and nurses working with ISIL could be considered unlawful combatants and targeted militarily without due process. This is legally and morally wrong. Using that reasoning Tarleton's killing of American civilians during the Revlutionary War would have been legally fine, which it wasn't.

    The Geneva Conventions protect individuals and not states. ISIL not signing it does not free other nations who have in whole or in part signed onto these conventions from following them. You are bound by them even if ISIL is not. Thus more flawed argument here.

    This is wrong and profoundly morally corrupting behaviour which threatens to metastasise from foreign military realms to domestic internal security policy, if the militarisation of law enforcement policy continues at its present pace and thus such extrajudicial killing must be stopped now. Period.

    Cheers.
    Evilroddy.

  6. #46
    Sage
    Fledermaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,846

    Re: British Isis member Sally Jones 'killed in airstrike with 12-year-old son'

    Quote Originally Posted by Evilroddy View Post
    Fledermaus:

    Extrajudicial killing of anyone, alleged terrorist or not, is illegal and criminal. It is not a good thing. To advocate for it is irresponsible.

    Sally Jones did not engage in direct combat and was therefore a civilian and not an unlawful combatant without privilege. Advocacy for a cause, even a very, very bad cause, does not equate to direct combat under arms. By such flawed reasoning doctors and nurses working with ISIL could be considered unlawful combatants and targeted militarily without due process. This is legally and morally wrong. Using that reasoning Tarleton's killing of American civilians during the Revlutionary War would have been legally fine, which it wasn't.

    The Geneva Conventions protect individuals and not states. ISIL not signing it does not free other nations who have in whole or in part signed onto these conventions from following them. You are bound by them even if ISIL is not. Thus more flawed argument here.

    This is wrong and profoundly morally corrupting behaviour which threatens to metastasise from foreign military realms to domestic internal security policy, if the militarisation of law enforcement policy continues at its present pace and thus such extrajudicial killing must be stopped now. Period.

    Cheers.
    Evilroddy.
    There is no "alleged" terrorist. She admitted to it. She reveled in it.

    She is not a "civilian". She is a AT BEST an unlawful combatant without privilege. Terrorists are terrorists.

    As to the Geneva conventions, I suggest you READ them.

    Applicability of the Geneva Conventions

    1. The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version. (DOES NOT APPLY)
    2. The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war. This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a police action (a military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war). (DOES NOT APPLY)
    3. The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions. Source: 1952 Commentary on the Geneva Conventions, edited by Jean Pictet.(DOES NOT APPLY)
    “All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
    ― Douglas Adams

  7. #47
    Educator Evilroddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    811

    Re: British Isis member Sally Jones 'killed in airstrike with 12-year-old son'

    Quote Originally Posted by Fledermaus View Post
    There is no "alleged" terrorist. She admitted to it. She reveled in it.

    She is not a "civilian". She is a AT BEST an unlawful combatant without privilege. Terrorists are terrorists.

    As to the Geneva conventions, I suggest you READ them.

    Applicability of the Geneva Conventions

    1. The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version. (DOES NOT APPLY)
    2. The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war. This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a police action (a military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war). (DOES NOT APPLY)
    3. The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions. Source: 1952 Commentary on the Geneva Conventions, edited by Jean Pictet.(DOES NOT APPLY)
    Fledermaus:

    Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

    The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

    Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
    From:

    https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/3...25641e004aa3c5

    Article 2 of GCIV makes it clear that signatory powers are bound to follow the conventions even if they are in conflict with states which are not parties to the convention. Syria is a party so the killing of Sally Jones outside of Raqqa was an illegal act and might constitute a war crime.

    Cheers.
    Evilroddy.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •