51–60 of 177 posts
When the Taliban killed someone for doing something that offends them, such as providing education for girls, did they generally leave a message explaining how that particular person came to their attention?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the suggestion was that the actual war was illegal, mostly proven by now, there was no basis for it. As for what happens in war, we can take a look at what Geneva convention tried, but that’s not the debate.
This implies that there are political motives that justify killing thousands to millions of soldiers and civilians. Can you or anyone here provide a non-exhaustive list of these justifiable motives?
Grab some books on the Iraq war.
There’s plenty of money involved in making and buying rockets to throw at a country (defense industry), then rebuilding said country (defense contracting), then securing that country’s resources (oil industry), all while winning re-election (Politics).
In Medieval (Antiquity too? Goes pretty far back) terms, this is often called Plundering. There’s a real market for it.
I forget. Anyone know why we’re treating Julian Assange like the worst criminal that ever existed? “ Those two shootings were a thousand times repeated, though the reports were rare in admitting that the victims were civilians. More usually, the dead were automatically identified as ‘terrorists’ caught in the act, regardless of evidence to the contrary. ” Here’s an argument against Leetcode. There are real patterns i…
Because he revealed evidence of one of the worst crimes committed by humanity in the last 100 years? 4 million innocent people murdered in illegal wars is a lot of blood on the hands of the American people. And, we all know how much they hate to be embarrassed by such things ..
As much as I oppose to US military politics, I think that in the past 100 years there have been much worse crimes than US wars in the middle east.
If I think of the worst criminal of the modern era (post WW2) the first name that comes to mind is Vladimir Putin.
For once: he wiped a tenth of the entire Chechen population, it's like if someone ordered the killing of 34 millions of US citizens.
Lucky us the red army is not the red army anymore.
He founded and promoted terrorism in Ukraine, shot down civilian airplanes, bombed refugees camps, used chemical warfare, prohibited by international treaties, on civilians
He also ordered the assassination of a number of journalists
But Snowden is his guest, so he must be a good man...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was really Greenwald and Poitras, and the Guardian just happened to be Greenwald's main outlet at the time. However WikiLeaks did help Snowden with his legal defense and flight to asylum in Russia.
> flight to asylum in Russia. Ironically Snowden tweets about freedom of information from Russia, where Putin literally kills journalists
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We don't need to, we know who their source was (Snowden). If Assange wants to claim he's a journalist, that's fine, but then he either needs to accept the consequences of protecting his sources, or out his sources. Journalists are legally required to put their sources or they are on the hook? I suggest you revisit the case history on this subject.
> I suggest you revisit the case history on this subject. Can you point me at some links? I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that shield laws are state by state, and there are no federal protections.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because he revealed evidence of one of the worst crimes committed by humanity in the last 100 years? 4 million innocent people murdered in illegal wars is a lot of blood on the hands of the American people. And, we all know how much they hate to be embarrassed by such things ..
>4 million innocent people murdered in illegal wars This phrase has always bugged me. How do you carry out a 100% legal war? War is by its very nature an uprooting of the normal system where we resolve conflicts in a peaceful and organized fashion.
For the 2003 invasion of Iraq, people argue that it was illegal because there was no UNSC resolution. The U.S. and U.K. argued that it was authorized under the UNSC resolution that blessed the first U.s. invasion of Iraq. I think that sounds like nonsense, and particularly when you factor in that the actual pretenses for the 2003 invasion were false and probably fabricated by the aggressing parties—it seems like not a stretch to call it an illegal war.
Obviously the 2003 Iraq Invasion doesn't itself get you to OP's 4 million body count, but I hope this is a helpful start.
I forget. Anyone know why we’re treating Julian Assange like the worst criminal that ever existed? “ Those two shootings were a thousand times repeated, though the reports were rare in admitting that the victims were civilians. More usually, the dead were automatically identified as ‘terrorists’ caught in the act, regardless of evidence to the contrary. ” Here’s an argument against Leetcode. There are real patterns i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the suggestion was that the actual war was illegal, mostly proven by now, there was no basis for it. As for what happens in war, we can take a look at what Geneva convention tried, but that’s not the debate.
This implies that there are political motives that justify killing thousands to millions of soldiers and civilians. Can you or anyone here provide a non-exhaustive list of these justifiable motives?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the suggestion was that the actual war was illegal, mostly proven by now, there was no basis for it. As for what happens in war, we can take a look at what Geneva convention tried, but that’s not the debate.
This implies that there are political motives that justify killing thousands to millions of soldiers and civilians. Can you or anyone here provide a non-exhaustive list of these justifiable motives?