4 ms·

> I think it’s naive to think of ourselves as living in a just world. The US military entered a foreign nation without their knowledge or authorization, abduct

> I think it’s naive to think of ourselves as living in a just world. The US military entered a foreign nation without their knowledge or authorization, abducted a resident, took the resident out to sea, placed a bag over their heads, put concrete shoes on that resident, and then dumped them overboard with no witnesses other than the "Seal Team" carrying out the order. No trial. No witnesses. Only abduction, seclusion, and murder. That's not justice. Those are Mafia Tactics. ___ Does this remind anyone of anything? A Mr. Al. A Mr. Al Capone perhaps? That's right. One of the world's most infamous gangsters, mobsters, crimelords, did this very thing to individuals that Capone didn't want talking to the press, the government, or anyone else that would listen. This is mob-boss behavior, and the US Government does this now. Oh, how about the unlawful imprisonment of 100s of detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba? Secret courts, whose authority is far-reaching with no citizen oversight whatsoever. Yeah the US Federal Government, since 9-11, is a bunch of mobsters with guns. There is no difference in the way our Federal Government acts now, and how 1920s and 1930s mobsters act. Any human being that doesn't recognize the similarity is deluding themselves into believing so.

0cVlTeIATBs 5y ago
How did you learn about this incident which had no witnesses?
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  GP's obvious hyperbole and distortions are obvious. That said, this is among the weaker rebuttals which could be offered. (See my own response in thread.)
dredmorbius 5y ago
This was in response to acts of war and unprovoked attacks against the United States mainland with both military and civillian targets by an individual who had made a specific declaration of war against the U.S.: https://scholar.dickinson.edu/faculty_publications/277/ https://scholar.dickinson.edu/faculty_publications/277/ Comparing that speific case to failure to follow proper criminal procedure and rule of law is disengenuous to the extreme. There are many criticisms which can be made of the US response to (and other actions after) the 9/11 attacks. The assassination of the leader of the irregular forces aligned against the US is not one such. Numerous other instances would have made for a vastly stronger argument. The fact is that there is no clear dividing line between acts of war and criminal acts --- recognised among other ways in the phrase "war crimes" itself (which might be applied both by, and against, the United States). The situation in Guantanamo is far more valid. The case of drone warfare and strikes another instance. It's worth noting that the US is hardly alone in these tactics, and that irregular and extrajudicial killings are in fact a major element of the considerations in the case of Al Qaeda, at least some of the Guantanamo detainees, and drone strikes. The real world is messy. That said, I'd disagree with your conclusion on lack of difference, moralising, invective, and hyperbole notwithstanding.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > This was in response to acts of war and unprovoked attacks against the United States mainland with both military and civillian targets by an individual who had made a specific declaration of war against the U.S. Since when do individuals wage "war" on nation-states? (And no, if the only counter-examples you can come up with are 18th-century pirate chiefs and tiny Carribbean islands you've failed. We're talking 21st-century USA here.) > Comparing that speific case Which "specific" case? The GP mentioned hundreds of Gitmo prisoners, several of which have later been shown to be completely innocent victims of mistaken identity. > to failure to follow proper criminal procedure and rule of law is disengenuous to the extreme. If anything is "disengenuous to the extreme" here it seems to be your defense of the USA's recent practices.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    What I wrote was "acts of war" and "specific declaration of war" by the individual in quesiton, with a link to the citation. If you have any issue with established historical fact, that's your own concern. Decapitating a specific cult of personality has been an effective method of eliminating it. Which also proved successful in the case of AQ. (Yes, there are new emergent threats and groups, including several previously associated with AQ. I also said that the real world is messy.) The specific case I was discussing, and I really hope I'm not so vague in my dotage that this wasn't crystal clear, was the 2 May 2011 attack on Osama bin Laden's compound resulting in his death. What I defended was a specific instance, while acknowledging concerns and issues in other areas. Both you and imbchillyb are displaying a lack of such naunce. The US is vast and contains multitudes, some defensible, some not. It cares little for what I have to say. Refreshing your memory: https://forum.iwethey.org/forum/post/8257/ https://forum.iwethey.org/forum/post/8257/ obLRPD: Powered by sporks.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > The specific case I was discussing, and I really hope I'm not so vague in my dotage that this wasn't crystal clear, was the 2 May 2011 attack on Osama bin Laden's compound resulting in his death. Nope, certainly not crystal clear: You were replying to a post that mentioned, among other things, the Guantanamo internment camp, and airily said "this" case. I saw no specification there of which case, exactly, that was supposed to be. Yes, the USA may be vast and contain multitudes, but even you talk about "the US": In the end there is only one of it, and when the USA as a nation-state does stuff then it's the USA, singular, as a nation-state that gets discussed and criticized. Just like here. I hope I'll never get so fuzzy in my dotage that I'll let sich disingenuous attempts at obfuscation slip by. Hm... Pseudo-helpful hint/ reminder; feels like about 50/50 past and current posters. I'd already concluded neither extreme of Box or Ash, for rather obvious linguistic reasons. Been considering alumni like RM, DRL, KMS et al, but this feels more like currents such as RC, SK, or SA. Or perhaps AG; I notice that his recipe -- besides the formal declaration being severely watered down -- was pretty much what the US (singular, as a nation-state) went with. I don't have your email; you have mine.

0cVlTeIATBs 5y ago

How did you learn about this incident which had no witnesses?

dredmorbius 5y ago
GP's obvious hyperbole and distortions are obvious. That said, this is among the weaker rebuttals which could be offered. (See my own response in thread.)

dredmorbius 5y ago

This was in response to acts of war and unprovoked attacks against the United States mainland with both military and civillian targets by an individual who had made a specific declaration of war against the U.S.: https://scholar.dickinson.edu/faculty_publications/277/ https://scholar.dickinson.edu/faculty_publications/277/ Comparing that speific case to failure to follow proper criminal procedure and rule of law is disengenuous to the extreme. There are many criticisms which can be made of the US response to (and other actions after) the 9/11 attacks. The assassination of the leader of the irregular forces aligned against the US is not one such. Numerous other instances would have made for a vastly stronger argument. The fact is that there is no clear dividing line between acts of war and criminal acts --- recognised among other ways in the phrase "war crimes" itself (which might be applied both by, and against, the United States). The situation in Guantanamo is far more valid. The case of drone warfare and strikes another instance. It's worth noting that the US is hardly alone in these tactics, and that irregular and extrajudicial killings are in fact a major element of the considerations in the case of Al Qaeda, at least some of the Guantanamo detainees, and drone strikes. The real world is messy. That said, I'd disagree with your conclusion on lack of difference, moralising, invective, and hyperbole notwithstanding.

CRConrad 5y ago
> This was in response to acts of war and unprovoked attacks against the United States mainland with both military and civillian targets by an individual who had made a specific declaration of war against the U.S. Since when do individuals wage "war" on nation-states? (And no, if the only counter-examples you can come up with are 18th-century pirate chiefs and tiny Carribbean islands you've failed. We're talking 21st-century USA here.) > Comparing that speific case Which "specific" case? The GP mentioned hundreds of Gitmo prisoners, several of which have later been shown to be completely innocent victims of mistaken identity. > to failure to follow proper criminal procedure and rule of law is disengenuous to the extreme. If anything is "disengenuous to the extreme" here it seems to be your defense of the USA's recent practices.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  What I wrote was "acts of war" and "specific declaration of war" by the individual in quesiton, with a link to the citation. If you have any issue with established historical fact, that's your own concern. Decapitating a specific cult of personality has been an effective method of eliminating it. Which also proved successful in the case of AQ. (Yes, there are new emergent threats and groups, including several previously associated with AQ. I also said that the real world is messy.) The specific case I was discussing, and I really hope I'm not so vague in my dotage that this wasn't crystal clear, was the 2 May 2011 attack on Osama bin Laden's compound resulting in his death. What I defended was a specific instance, while acknowledging concerns and issues in other areas. Both you and imbchillyb are displaying a lack of such naunce. The US is vast and contains multitudes, some defensible, some not. It cares little for what I have to say. Refreshing your memory: https://forum.iwethey.org/forum/post/8257/ https://forum.iwethey.org/forum/post/8257/ obLRPD: Powered by sporks.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > The specific case I was discussing, and I really hope I'm not so vague in my dotage that this wasn't crystal clear, was the 2 May 2011 attack on Osama bin Laden's compound resulting in his death. Nope, certainly not crystal clear: You were replying to a post that mentioned, among other things, the Guantanamo internment camp, and airily said "this" case. I saw no specification there of which case, exactly, that was supposed to be. Yes, the USA may be vast and contain multitudes, but even you talk about "the US": In the end there is only one of it, and when the USA as a nation-state does stuff then it's the USA, singular, as a nation-state that gets discussed and criticized. Just like here. I hope I'll never get so fuzzy in my dotage that I'll let sich disingenuous attempts at obfuscation slip by. Hm... Pseudo-helpful hint/ reminder; feels like about 50/50 past and current posters. I'd already concluded neither extreme of Box or Ash, for rather obvious linguistic reasons. Been considering alumni like RM, DRL, KMS et al, but this feels more like currents such as RC, SK, or SA. Or perhaps AG; I notice that his recipe -- besides the formal declaration being severely watered down -- was pretty much what the US (singular, as a nation-state) went with. I don't have your email; you have mine.