4 ms·

> 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 ha

> 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.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    I've told you specifically what I was referring to, and you are continuing to dispute what I was telling you. The same vagueness applies to imchillyb's comment, yet you seem to find no fault with that.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      Why do you think that "told you specifically what I was referring to" defines the discussion? Who died and bequeathed it to you alone? imchillyb explicitly mentioned stuff -- yeah, lots of stuff, including among other things false internments at Guantanamo -- so pointing out that your claimed "debunking" does not at all debunk those isn't "vague" at all. Any "vagueness" in their comment is only in your head.
      - dredmorbius 5y ago
        Of the very few topics I consider myself an ultimate authority on, my own mental state and intent is a prime instance. I may not have communicated effectively. And in discussion with you it seems I'll never be able to. But I know what I intended to communicate, and have stated what that is, repeatedly. You seem bent on steering the conversation to what you wanted to hear me say. Which seems to be a premise founded on precisely the weak foundation you criticise me for. Really, we're done here, Christian.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        If anyone who seems bent here, it's you: Bent on dictating the terms not only of what you are talking about, but what everyone is. But yeah: As long as you think you get to define what the conversation is about by what you "were referring to", yes Doug, we're done here.
- tata71 5y ago
  Concisely: AQ runs Afghanistan, now. So, it was difficult to finish your comment.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    My understanding is that it's the Taliban, and a cursory check of credible references supports this. That's a group formally alligned with AQ, but distinct from it, again, via credible references. Other active entities include the Islamic State (ISIL / Daesh), and various organisations largely funded / supported and/or organised around Iranian, Syrian, and Palastinian interests. Please note that this is not an area of personal expertise.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > That's a group formally alligned with AQ, but distinct from it, again, via credible references. Actual "formally", or "formerly" (or both)?

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.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  I've told you specifically what I was referring to, and you are continuing to dispute what I was telling you. The same vagueness applies to imchillyb's comment, yet you seem to find no fault with that.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    Why do you think that "told you specifically what I was referring to" defines the discussion? Who died and bequeathed it to you alone? imchillyb explicitly mentioned stuff -- yeah, lots of stuff, including among other things false internments at Guantanamo -- so pointing out that your claimed "debunking" does not at all debunk those isn't "vague" at all. Any "vagueness" in their comment is only in your head.
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      Of the very few topics I consider myself an ultimate authority on, my own mental state and intent is a prime instance. I may not have communicated effectively. And in discussion with you it seems I'll never be able to. But I know what I intended to communicate, and have stated what that is, repeatedly. You seem bent on steering the conversation to what you wanted to hear me say. Which seems to be a premise founded on precisely the weak foundation you criticise me for. Really, we're done here, Christian.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        If anyone who seems bent here, it's you: Bent on dictating the terms not only of what you are talking about, but what everyone is. But yeah: As long as you think you get to define what the conversation is about by what you "were referring to", yes Doug, we're done here.
tata71 5y ago
Concisely: AQ runs Afghanistan, now. So, it was difficult to finish your comment.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  My understanding is that it's the Taliban, and a cursory check of credible references supports this. That's a group formally alligned with AQ, but distinct from it, again, via credible references. Other active entities include the Islamic State (ISIL / Daesh), and various organisations largely funded / supported and/or organised around Iranian, Syrian, and Palastinian interests. Please note that this is not an area of personal expertise.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > That's a group formally alligned with AQ, but distinct from it, again, via credible references. Actual "formally", or "formerly" (or both)?