Sharon says Pledge on Arafat is off.

[Plekhanov]

The invasion and occupation of a country is quite commonly known as a war shit for brains.

Ah, always appeal to "common sense" definitions when you don't like the actual legal definition.

Legal definitions are sometimes of limited value, especially when the law is all that stands between say any government and what it wants to do especially in foreign policy, which might be why to the best of my recollection the USA never declared war in Vietnam or Korea and I’ve heard that it hasn’t legally declared war since WWII.

Apart from on drugs, terrorism and gay marriage of course.

[Keevan_Colton]

The invasion and occupation of a country is quite commonly known as a war shit for brains.

Ah, always appeal to "common sense" definitions when you don't like the actual legal definition.

Legal definitions are sometimes of limited value, especially when the law is all that stands between say any government and what it wants to do especially in foreign policy, which might be why to the best of my recollection the USA never declared war in Vietnam or Korea and I?ve heard that it hasn?t legally declared war since WWII.

Apart from on drugs, terrorism and gay marriage of course.

Dont forget porn either.

Howie, not being in control of the ground would be a matter of incompetence on the part of the US and other coallition forces given the fact they invaded and overthrew the government and replaced it with one of thier own choosing. If you can tell me with a straight fucking face that was not a war then you belong in the acting business.

[Howedar]

I don't give a flying fuck what it was you retard. The OPFOR is made up of illegal combatants, subject to summary execution under the Geneva Conventions.

[Knife]

The invasion and occupation of a country is quite commonly known as a war shit for brains.

Ah, always appeal to "common sense" definitions when you don't like the actual legal definition.

Legal definitions are sometimes of limited value, especially when the law is all that stands between say any government and what it wants to do especially in foreign policy, which might be why to the best of my recollection the USA never declared war in Vietnam or Korea and I’ve heard that it hasn’t legally declared war since WWII.

Apart from on drugs, terrorism and gay marriage of course.

You can't have it both ways. Either the law says these people are legetimate targets or they don't. Weather the other side is violating the law is, in itself, a different issue as to if knocking off one of these fucks is against the law.

[Plekhanov]

I don't give a flying fuck what it was you retard. The OPFOR is made up of illegal combatants, subject to summary execution under the Geneva Conventions.

The war in Afghanistan was apparently won along time ago (which is why the “war on terrorism” could move on to Iraq), peace time law applies there now and “illegal combatants” don’t exist there anymore, now they are known as criminals and can no longer be summarily shot.

[Howedar]

The war in Afghanistan was apparently won along time ago (which is why the ?war on terrorism? could move on to Iraq), peace time law applies there now and ?illegal combatants? don?t exist there anymore, now they are known as criminals and can no longer be summarily shot.

Holy cow.


1. The war isn't over, that's why we have troops dying over there on a regular basis.
2. You can have a war on multiple fronts (see WW2).
3. Afganistan is no more at peace now than it has been in the last twenty years. Warlords are still fighting warlords, and our troops are still stuck there.
4. If Afghanistan was at peace, why would our troops be there?
5. Even in peacetime, even in the fucking US, if you shoot at a US military patrol you can expect yourself to be shot up in short order. So unless you're expecting Taliban/Al-Q. forces to wave a white flag, they're going to be killed by US forces whenever they are seen. Even in peace, shooting at a soldier is an invitation for that soldier to shoot back.

[Plekhanov]

The war in Afghanistan was apparently won along time ago (which is why the ?war on terrorism? could move on to Iraq), peace time law applies there now and ?illegal combatants? don?t exist there anymore, now they are known as criminals and can no longer be summarily shot.

Holy cow.

1. The war isn't over, that's why we have troops dying over there on a regular basis.

If you'd noticed the word “apparently” in my post you’d have realised that I was somewhat doubtful as to the successful resolution to the US involvement in Afghanistan, but if you listen to your government it was done and dusted long ago. However that said, I think that the war as such is over and now you are into occupation.

You can have a war on multiple fronts (see WW2).

WWwhat? Sorry never heard of that have you got link?

3. Afganistan is no more at peace now than it has been in the last twenty years. Warlords are still fighting warlords, and our troops are still stuck there.
4. If Afghanistan was at peace, why would our troops be there?

You are currently occupying Afghanistan; you might also have troops subject to losses there if they were “Peacekeeping” (though I know the US doesn’t like to do that). Even if Afghanistan was at peace the US has a long and ignoble history of forcing local puppet governments to agree to the creation of US military bases (see Guantanamo) on very long leases so you can hardly argue that the US only posts troops in places currently at war.

5. Even in peacetime, even in the fucking US, if you shoot at a US military patrol you can expect yourself to be shot up in short order. So unless you're expecting Taliban/Al-Q. forces to wave a white flag, they're going to be killed by US forces whenever they are seen. Even in peace, shooting at a soldier is an invitation for that soldier to shoot back.

This thread is about the premeditated murder of political leaders not returning fire.

[MKSheppard]

Howie, not being in control of the ground would be a matter of incompetence on the part of the US and other coallition forces given the fact they invaded and overthrew the government and replaced it with one of thier own choosing.

Afghanistan is a mountainous country, fucktool. Care to tell me what
number one primo guerilla territory is, fuckstick? YES THATS RIGHT,
MOUNTAINS. Even the Wehrmact of WWII was never able to control
the Balkans, even though they were indescribably more numerous and
ruthless on the ground than we can aspire towards in A-Stan.

[MKSheppard]

WWwhat? Sorry never heard of that have you got link?

Fucking Shitstain, Go type WW2 into google, you goddamn retard,
We're not going to do your fucking research.

This thread is about the premeditated murder of political leaders not returning fire.

What if the political leaders also have lots of blood on their hands throughout
their very chequered careers?

[Plekhanov]

You can't have it both ways. Either the law says these people are legetimate targets or they don't. Weather the other side is violating the law is, in itself, a different issue as to if knocking off one of these fucks is against the law.

Why can’t I have it both ways? Sharon and Bush certainly do . But seriously, you are no doubt correct in your opinion that if Israel and Palestine were at war and Arafat was wearing a uniform he would be a legitimate (legally speaking) target, but Israel and Palestine aren’t at war so an assassination of Arafat would be illegal.

My objections to shooting Arafat are not so much of a technical legal nature but more of a more fundamental, practical and moral nature (as you have no doubt already judged from my previous posts). If Arafat were to be assassinated no doubt sophist lawyers in the Israeli and US governments would justify it somehow, my readings of the law are in comparison undoubtedly rather naive and straightforward but quite possibly more valid for that.

Who are "these people"? What do you mean by “one of these fucks”? This thread has drifted from Arafat to Afghanistan and Bin Laden, I do hope that you aren’t attempting to treat them as equals. I’m no fan of either, but Arafat corrupt and tyrannical as he may be is the generally recognised leader of the Palestinians, his acts of violence (at least those not directed at his own people), reprehensible as they may be, have been in a clearly defined and just cause. None of these qualifiers apply to Bin Laden, he is simply a fanatical terrorist don’t link them together simply because they claim to be Muslims.

[Plekhanov]

WWwhat? Sorry never heard of that have you got link?

Fucking Shitstain, Go type WW2 into google, you goddamn retard,
We're not going to do your fucking research.

Never heard of irony or sarcasm? If you'd care to scroll up you’ll find that I refer to WWII in a previous post on this page “you goddamn retard”.

What if the political leaders also have lots of blood on their hands throughout their very chequered careers?

What like Sharon, Blair and Bush for example?

[MKSheppard]

Never heard of irony or sarcasm?

My sarcasm metre is operating at very low levels thanks to Shroom Man's
stupidty, so screw yourself, fuckstick.

What like Sharon, Blair and Bush for example?

Funny, I didn't know Sharon, Blair, and Bush were in the business of
terrorism for forty years.

[Knife]

Who are "these people"? What do you mean by “one of these fucks”? This thread has drifted from Arafat to Afghanistan and Bin Laden, I do hope that you aren’t attempting to treat them as equals. I’m no fan of either, but Arafat corrupt and tyrannical as he may be is the generally recognised leader of the Palestinians, his acts of violence (at least those not directed at his own people), reprehensible as they may be, have been in a clearly defined and just cause. None of these qualifiers apply to Bin Laden, he is simply a fanatical terrorist don’t link them together simply because they claim to be Muslims.

'These People' are the grey area we're talking about. Terrorists, irregulars, illegal combatents, call'em what you want. The LAW says that if they're illegal, then little protection if afforded. If they're 'leaders' of military organizations, they're legitemate targets, such as Arafat and Kadafi(sp?).

The one in this thread who is attempting to treat them as equals is you by thinking that everyone, no matter what their little cause is, is applicable under criminal law instead of being military threats. Some are criminal affairs that should be sent through the courts, others are legitemate targets to get a JDAM dropped on em.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The invasion and occupation of a country is quite commonly known as a war shit for brains.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

We showered Afghanistan with bombs and special forces, and openly endorsed a rival faction in a civil war.

These are acts of war. I suppose that the French intervention in the American Revolution is more a police action than a war because they didn't invade and occupy?

It isn't my fault you didn't do your homework.

Well done, we put fucking spies on trial you shithead. We dont just walk up and use the old 9mm solution, we have laws, which is something you lot seem to think apply only when convenient. Why should someone who commits murder be entitled to more due process than someone who conspires to commit murder.

You cannot read.

The Geneva Convention, a fucking treaty, and thus binding international law to signatories, says you can execute combatants not in uniform.

Sorry, is this a case of you apply intranational laws to war situations? Are you stupid?

If it is?

Did we just shoot all the nazi heriarchy dead come the end of WW2 when we controlled the ground...no, we had the trials at Nuremburg. We afforded hitlers fucking henchmen more rights than we do those who conspire to commit terrorism. Sure, we can execute them at the end of the trial rather than put them in a box, but have the fucking trial.

The trial was a fucking joke. I suppose you cry tears over the Mossad offing those exile bastards who managed to get out of Europe and away from Allied trials?

Why does every moron with an opinion think making an analogy to the Second World War changes anything.

How about the U.S. Navy shooting down a Japanese Admiral during the Second World War. Is that terrible? Where's the cut-off? Kill the fucker in the pillbox upahead, but oh no, not the general! We need to cuff him and read him some Miranda Rights.

Jebus H. Frelling Crimbo, it's like talking to the fucking Special Needs people...

No, you just have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Everyone with a brain sees that capturing Osama would lead to a ripple effect in them using the trial as a soapbox, their assbuddies taking hostages and making demands, etc.

If a Japanese Admiral could be shot down for the strategic good of the war in the Pacific, I'm not shedding tears for OBL.

[Plekhanov]

Never heard of irony or sarcasm?

My sarcasm metre is operating at very low levels thanks to Shroom Man's stupidty, so screw yourself, fuckstick.

I can appreciate that the idiot level on boards such as this is high but ignorance to WWII? Surely that’s a bit much even for this Shroom guy.

What if the political leaders also have lots of blood on their hands throughout their very chequered careers?

What like Sharon, Blair and Bush for example?

Funny, I didn't know Sharon, Blair, and Bush were in the business of terrorism for forty years.

Oh so it’s blood on your hands for 40 years now is it? Well in that case Blair and Bush are fine as the blood on their hands is still fresh, Sharon however still qualifies as according to Fox News, a notoriously Pro-Palestinian news provider I know but it’s the best I could find (note to Shep, I’m being sarcastic), in 1953 he blew up 40 Palestinian houses in the West Bank killing 69 people, pre-48 he was in a Zionist militia trying to kill British soldiers.

So I suppose you think his life his forfeit then and you’ll applaud if an assassin manages to end it, or are there some other conditions you need to add before Sharon gets added to your death list?

[Plekhanov]

'These People' are the grey area we're talking about. Terrorists, irregulars, illegal combatents, call'em what you want. The LAW says that if they're illegal, then little protection if afforded. If they're 'leaders' of military organizations, they're legitemate targets, such as Arafat and Kadafi(sp?).

Qadafi Blair’s new best friend and the US’s new trade partner is a legitimate target for assassination is he? Quick you better tell Blair before he totally disappear up Qadafi's arse.

But I digress, once again I’ll ask you, Arafat is an illegal combatant in which war?

If he’s a combatant resisting the ongoing occupation following the 6 day war I’d say the balance of illegality is on Israel’s side and his actions are (morally) legitimate resistance and any Israli attempt to sight the GCs to justify his murder would be self defeating as the occupation causing the resistance is also illegal.

If on the other hand you take account of the fact that even Israel recognised the PA’s authority some time ago, he’s the established political leader of a state. A state that has been invaded and the citizens of which have been feebly attempting to defend themselves from illegal occupation and colonisation for some time. A small minority of whom have committed terrorist acts in Israel proper. Why does this make him a legitimate target for assassination?

Whichever way you look at it Israel are the aggressors, it is absurd to attempt to selectively quote from the GC and so forth to justify the murder of Palestinian leaders when their acts are a response to the ongoing illegal occupation of Palestine.

The one in this thread who is attempting to treat them as equals is you by thinking that everyone, no matter what their little cause is, is applicable under criminal law instead of being military threats. Some are criminal affairs that should be sent through the courts, others are legitemate targets to get a JDAM dropped on em.

I suppose in one way I do treat all people as equals in that I take the much declared democratic principle that all people are equal before the law at face value, I suggest you check back to see what we are supposedly fighting for before criticising me for this.

Military law should and does apply under restricted circumstances the pursuit of Bin Laden may well qualify, but if he’s still alive does he really still present a military threat to the US, being chased from cave to cave as he currently is?

How does Arafat, under siege in his compound and with his security services destroyed present a military threat to anybody?

If in either case there are legitimate charges to be brought at least make a token attempt to arrest the suspect and if they violently resist then kill them. It is the premeditated murder without even an attempt to apply the due process of law that I object to. Especially if you JDAM them and inevitably take out innocent bystanders.

[Rogue 9]

The invasion and occupation of a country is quite commonly known as a war shit for brains.

Ah, always appeal to "common sense" definitions when you don't like the actual legal definition.

Legal definitions are sometimes of limited value, especially when the law is all that stands between say any government and what it wants to do especially in foreign policy, which might be why to the best of my recollection the USA never declared war in Vietnam or Korea and I’ve heard that it hasn’t legally declared war since WWII.

Apart from on drugs, terrorism and gay marriage of course.

The United States did indeed declare war on North Korea. There was never a peace treaty; legally there is still a state of war between the United States and North Korea.

[Plekhanov]

The United States did indeed declare war on North Korea. There was never a peace treaty; legally there is still a state of war between the United States and North Korea.

OK my mistake, am I right in thinking it hasn't declared war since Korea?

[Howedar]

1. The war isn't over, that's why we have troops dying over there on a regular basis.

If you'd noticed the word ?apparently? in my post you?d have realised that I was somewhat doubtful as to the successful resolution to the US involvement in Afghanistan, but if you listen to your government it was done and dusted long ago. However that said, I think that the war as such is over and now you are into occupation.

So that's why Karzai controls nothing past the Kabul city limits. You have a very fascinating outlook on the world.

You can have a war on multiple fronts (see WW2).

WWwhat? Sorry never heard of that have you got link?

Concession accepted, shitstain.

3. Afganistan is no more at peace now than it has been in the last twenty years. Warlords are still fighting warlords, and our troops are still stuck there.
4. If Afghanistan was at peace, why would our troops be there?

You are currently occupying Afghanistan; you might also have troops subject to losses there if they were ?Peacekeeping? (though I know the US doesn?t like to do that). Even if Afghanistan was at peace the US has a long and ignoble history of forcing local puppet governments to agree to the creation of US military bases (see Guantanamo) on very long leases so you can hardly argue that the US only posts troops in places currently at war.

A very artful dodge of the point. Concession accepted.

5. Even in peacetime, even in the fucking US, if you shoot at a US military patrol you can expect yourself to be shot up in short order. So unless you're expecting Taliban/Al-Q. forces to wave a white flag, they're going to be killed by US forces whenever they are seen. Even in peace, shooting at a soldier is an invitation for that soldier to shoot back.

This thread is about the premeditated murder of political leaders not returning fire.

Those in Afganistan are guerilla leaders, actively involved in attacks on US troops. "Political" leaders my ass.

[Darth Wong]

From an ethical standpoint, the assassination of an enemy leader may be justified if it would prevent a greater number of deaths in the larger scheme of things. As for the legal standpoint, I am not familiar with the intricacies of international law, and quite frankly, I'm not that interested in them either.

[Knife]

Qadafi Blair’s new best friend and the US’s new trade partner is a legitimate target for assassination is he? Quick you better tell Blair before he totally disappear up Qadafi's arse.

But I digress, once again I’ll ask you, Arafat is an illegal combatant in which war?

You are being dense. Arafat is not an illegal combatent. He is a viable military target when he has his uniform on. If he took up arms in civie dress (like he did in his youth) he is an illegal combatent.

If he’s a combatant resisting the ongoing occupation following the 6 day war I’d say the balance of illegality is on Israel’s side and his actions are (morally) legitimate resistance and any Israli attempt to sight the GCs to justify his murder would be self defeating as the occupation causing the resistance is also illegal.

If on the other hand you take account of the fact that even Israel recognised the PA’s authority some time ago, he’s the established political leader of a state. A state that has been invaded and the citizens of which have been feebly attempting to defend themselves from illegal occupation and colonisation for some time. A small minority of whom have committed terrorist acts in Israel proper. Why does this make him a legitimate target for assassination?

Once again you try to make it a I v P thing when the disscusion was about the legality of taking out military personel or illegal combatents (at least that was what I originally posted about). I don't care if Isreal is 100% wrong and the Palestinians are 100% right, if an illegal combatents gets executed by Isreal, then Isreal did it by the book. If Isreal and Palestine are at war and Arafat wears a uniform, he's a legal target.

Whichever way you look at it Israel are the aggressors, it is absurd to attempt to selectively quote from the GC and so forth to justify the murder of Palestinian leaders when their acts are a response to the ongoing illegal occupation of Palestine.

Translation: I only like refering to the GC and other treaties when they back up my point.

I suppose in one way I do treat all people as equals in that I take the much declared democratic principle that all people are equal before the law at face value, I suggest you check back to see what we are supposedly fighting for before criticising me for this.

Every one is equal in the eyes of the law, and the law says the if X and Y are in effect then you can shoot them legally in a combat zone. What you really mean is that every one should be given their 15 minutes of fame in a court room no matter how many people have to die to try to arrest them or constrain them. The proper response to enemy fire is NOT the Miranda Rights but return fire.

Military law should and does apply under restricted circumstances the pursuit of Bin Laden may well qualify, but if he’s still alive does he really still present a military threat to the US, being chased from cave to cave as he currently is?

Now your just being an ass. Yes, in hinding, OBL is little threat on any scale. If he gets away and has time to regroup, he is a major threat. This is not a criminal case, its national security, the rules don't say he has to actually be aiming a weapon at you, just that he has one is enough.

How does Arafat, under siege in his compound and with his security services destroyed present a military threat to anybody?

Obvously he is a strategic threat to Isreal. Again, I don't agree with Isreal's position but that was never the point.

If in either case there are legitimate charges to be brought at least make a token attempt to arrest the suspect and if they violently resist then kill them. It is the premeditated murder without even an attempt to apply the due process of law that I object to. Especially if you JDAM them and inevitably take out innocent bystanders.

*sigh* There are times, even in law enforcement, where the likelyhood of 'violently resisting' is so high, that no attempt to peacfully arrest him/her is made and raw naked force is used. When dealing with national security threats, the threats usually start out at that level and go up.

I'm not saying that if OBL was seen at a KFC tommarrow, we should level the building or snipe him off but that situation is not going to happen. He'll be in a fortified location if/when we find him and will probably resist. He'll get bombed or shot with little attempt to 'arrest him'.