Philosophy Discussion Forums

ROGUE STATE USA: Trump publicly declared his culpability (nay, his joy) in the murder of General Qasem Soleimani, an individual of a sovereign state with whom the USA is not at war with. As a consequence IRAN has asked INTERPOL to issue a warrant for his arrest.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/5 ... ding-trump

The US is good at this, even murdering its own citizens it considers to be terrorists.
This is a clear breach of International Law.

As I posted in the other thread: I deplore America's assassination campaigns -- which escalated dramatically under Obama, but if anyone deserved assassination, it was Soleimani. Here's a New York Times article outlining his career (the U.S. may not have been at war with Iran, but that didn't deter Soleimani from killing people, including Americans and our allies). Good riddance to him.


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/obit ... -dead.html

Assassination is never a great option. I objected to our Special Forces killing Bin Laden, who may have been trying to surrender. Nonetheless, sometimes options are limited. Soleimi's actions definitely could have constituted a legitimate reason for declaring war. But is that really a better option? Should we continue to allow attacks on our citizens or our military? Is that a better option. I don't know the answers -- but I cannot approve of the idea that the only legitimate response to attacks is a declaration of war, which will lead to human suffering on a scale far beyond that which we created by whacking Soleimi. "Appropriate responses" are legitimate.

The notion that "international Law" should have precedence over justice, self-defense, and moral imperatives is ridiculous. The law cannot trump what is right. Fīat jūstitia ruat cælum.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/obit ... -dead.html

This link should work.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 6th, 2021, 6:38 am ROGUE STATE USA: Trump publicly declared his culpability (nay, his joy) in the murder of General Qasem Soleimani, an individual of a sovereign state with whom the USA is not at war with. As a consequence IRAN has asked INTERPOL to issue a warrant for his arrest.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/5 ... ding-trump

The US is good at this, even murdering its own citizens it considers to be terrorists.
This is a clear breach of International Law.

You are attacking a person of indefensible character in one of the few areas where his actions might reasonably defended. The same thing would likely have happened in the same way no matter who was president. There is a big difference between a terrorist and a duly elected or appointed representative of a foreign government. When the line is blurred, then the fact that the man is a terrorist takes priority. Using Al Jazeera as a source of 'information' only makes it worse. Tell both sides and at best it's complicated and all available choices are difficult.

chewybrian wrote: ↑January 7th, 2021, 9:51 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 6th, 2021, 6:38 am ROGUE STATE USA: Trump publicly declared his culpability (nay, his joy) in the murder of General Qasem Soleimani, an individual of a sovereign state with whom the USA is not at war with. As a consequence IRAN has asked INTERPOL to issue a warrant for his arrest.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/5 ... ding-trump

The US is good at this, even murdering its own citizens it considers to be terrorists.
This is a clear breach of International Law.

You are attacking a person of indefensible character in one of the few areas where his actions might reasonably defended. The same thing would likely have happened in the same way no matter who was president. There is a big difference between a terrorist and a duly elected or appointed representative of a foreign government.

No there is no difference unless you think it okay that the people who have power over you are above the law - Is this the case?
Nixon thought he was above the law, and ended up getting off scot free for cheating on the election.

When the line is blurred, then the fact that the man is a terrorist takes priority. Using Al Jazeera as a source of 'information' only makes it worse. Tell both sides and at best it's complicated and all available choices are difficult.

Trump Is the terrorist here. What is the difference? You claim that Solemani is the terrorist, but tell me how THIS representative of a government is different from YOUR representative of a government.
All you are saying here is two things.
1) US Presidents are above the law
2) Terrorism is okay if it is US doing the terrorising.

Ecurb wrote: ↑January 7th, 2021, 6:01 am https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/obit ... -dead.html

This link should work.

Trump buit an axis of terrorism in the West.
What is the difference?

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 7th, 2021, 11:16 am

Ecurb wrote: ↑January 7th, 2021, 6:01 am https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/obit ... -dead.html

This link should work.

Trump buit an axis of terrorism in the West.
What is the difference?

There''s no consistent agreement on how to define "terrorism". The U.N. defines it as:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

I don't think Solameini's assassination was "intended to provoke a state of terror in the general public."

Could some other appoach have eliminated the thread that Solameini constituted? I don't know. Maybe we could have sent in the Green Beret and arrested Solmeini. But I don't think we need to let foreign powers plot to kill our troops without some response, and killing Soleimani was reasonable retribution.

Obviously, the more targeted the retribution is, the better. Most of our drone assassinations involve collateral damage (I don't remember who else was killed along with Solameini). The Pentagon claimed that Solameeini was an "imminent threat", but, of course, that may not be reliable.

Some definitions of terrorism suggest it involves attacks on non-combatants. Solameini doesn't qualify.

In general, I think the "War on Terror" (like the "War on Drugs") is a P.R. mistake. It gives terrorists the status (and honor) of military combatants. Perhaps we should promote anti-terrorism as a criminal prosecution, instead of a military one. There are circumstances in which the police are justified in using deadly force, including that in which the criminal contitutes an imminent thread, and arresting him might be impossible. When the criminal is in a foreign country, the difficulty of arrest and prosecution is clear.

I try to avoid actually thumbnailing videos in other people's threads, it just doesn't look classy here, but Bret Weinstein's having a good conversation about the state of the US with Constantine and Francis at Triggernometry. As usual Bret paints a pretty good picture of what sort of animal we've been captured by.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2ijJp9cT_E

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 7th, 2021, 11:15 am Trump Is the terrorist here. What is the difference? You claim that Solemani is the terrorist, but tell me how THIS representative of a government is different from YOUR representative of a government.
All you are saying here is two things.
1) US Presidents are above the law
2) Terrorism is okay if it is US doing the terrorising.

No. I am saying that there is a big difference between killing civilians or assassinating leaders because you dislike their form of government, and killing someone who is actively killing citizens of your own country, or plotting to do so. One is arguably terrorism, one is arguably self-defense or war. I'm definitely not defending Trump, but just pointing out that Obama or Clinton or whoever would probably have done the same thing in the same circumstances. The only difference is Trump's no-class gloating about something that should be viewed as regrettable but necessary.

It's funny that you are attacking Trump on this basis, which is about the only area where I might feel compelled to defend his actions. I think we are about to find out that presidents are not above the law, and I think Trump will be removed before his term expires and then prosecuted. I'm not sure it will rise to treason, but I think the outcome will be more severe than most people expect. We will see.

chewybrian wrote: ↑January 7th, 2021, 9:23 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 7th, 2021, 11:15 am Trump Is the terrorist here. What is the difference? You claim that Solemani is the terrorist, but tell me how THIS representative of a government is different from YOUR representative of a government.
All you are saying here is two things.
1) US Presidents are above the law
2) Terrorism is okay if it is US doing the terrorising.

No. I am saying that there is a big difference between killing civilians or assassinating leaders because you dislike their form of government, and killing someone who is actively killing citizens of your own country, or plotting to do so. One is arguably terrorism, one is arguably self-defense or war. I'm definitely not defending Trump, but just pointing out that Obama or Clinton or whoever would probably have done the same thing in the same circumstances. The only difference is Trump's no-class gloating about something that should be viewed as regrettable but necessary.

I think you are confused here.
And Obama being illegal not not justify Trump's illegality.
How can America hold a candle for the rule of law and democracy when the rest of the world see that America acts illegally and has been in perpetual war AGAINST democracy since 1945.

It's funny that you are attacking Trump on this basis, which is about the only area where I might feel compelled to defend his actions. I think we are about to find out that presidents are not above the law, and I think Trump will be removed before his term expires and then prosecuted. I'm not sure it will rise to treason, but I think the outcome will be more severe than most people expect. We will see.

Whataboutery! - It's not an argument, worth a ****.
I attacked Obama too, for not bringing Osama home for a proper trial.
Instead he had him killed - why?
Osama had a lot to say about the fact that America gave him his first rocket launcher in an illegal way against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, and that The US funded his organisation until Clinton changed his mind about Osama's motives.
America has been **** up its own interests for decades.

chewybrian wrote: ↑January 7th, 2021, 9:23 pmI think we are about to find out that presidents are not above the law, and I think Trump will be removed before his term expires and then prosecuted. I'm not sure it will rise to treason, but I think the outcome will be more severe than most people expect. We will see.

Well, it didn't take long...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/read-the-dra ... 09660.html

Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trumpt thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

Despite the fact that Trump has less than two weeks remaining in his term, the Articles of Impeachment are a good idea. By passing them through the House, any egregiously obnoxious actions by The Donald in his last two weeks can be quickly met with a conviction in the Senate. Passing the articles speeds up the potential process.

Should Trump be prosecuted after his term expires? I'm not sure. It would be bad for the country (allowing Trump to retain the spotlight would not be a good thing), but perhaps reasonable in terms of justice. I hope that we refuse to shine the spotlight on Donald Trump, reality TV star.

In Joe Biden's acceptance speech today, he vowed to build a wall around Mar-a-Lago. "And I'll make Donald Trump pay for it," promised the new President. "Anyone entering the Club will not be allowed back in the United States."

Rumors that a caravan of Mar-a-Lago members was heading toward the wall and planning to break through were unconfirmed. Reports that some of those in the caravan are white-collar criminals are also unconfirmed. The reports have precipitated widespread panic in Florida. "We don't need their kind in our state," said one Florida State Senator.

This topic's OP aims us at the illegal acts of the US in the world. Recent changes mean that the US has returned from ego-fuelled gangsterism to the extreme right-wing Predatory Capitalism we've come to expect. I imagine this will mean that US actions will also return to their previous, er, dubious morality?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 21st, 2021, 10:32 am This topic's OP aims us at the illegal acts of the US in the world. Recent changes mean that the US has returned from ego-fuelled gangsterism to the extreme right-wing Predatory Capitalism we've come to expect. I imagine this will mean that US actions will also return to their previous, er, dubious morality?

Extreme right wing capitalism is the essence of the USA. Nothing is going to change that, until exteme domestic poverty causes people to wake up and engange with the political process. We have seen how they can engage.
Sadly they engaged by pouring religious adulation upon the very type of person that was tha cause of their problems.
I feel that in a world of social media and mass communication the size of the USA is way beyond a critical mass of population for anything useful to emerge from the political process.
I think sensible policies over COVID could bring a halt to the death rates. But the future is bleak for the greed orientated society that the US represents.