Posts: 3290
Threads: 118
Joined: January 19, 2015
Reputation:
30
Jiihadi John Assasinated
November 13, 2015 at 6:39 pm
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/uk-cameron-j...airstrike/
I'm surprised there isn't a thread about this already. The British citizen who beheaded multiple hostages on video was targeted and killed by the U.S. and apprarently Great Britain was in on it it as well.
I think it's a good thing because it sends a message that this kind of depraved violence is nothing less than a war crime and if you choose to do this, we WILL come after you and you will die.
On the other hand, this is clearly a political assassination. Jiihadi John did not pose a military threat - any fool can commit murder. We didn't like this guy (for obvious reasons) so we killed him.
Like I said, I think it sends a message that needed to be sent. I'm wondering what others here think.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Jiihadi John Assasinated
November 13, 2015 at 6:49 pm
Good riddance, if true.
No loss to humanity.
Posts: 30129
Threads: 304
Joined: April 18, 2014
Reputation:
92
RE: Jiihadi John Assasinated
November 13, 2015 at 6:52 pm
Wonder if he's being ravaged by 72 goats now ?
The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it.
Posts: 19789
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: Jiihadi John Assasinated
November 13, 2015 at 6:53 pm
Why do you use the word "assassinated"?
Posts: 3290
Threads: 118
Joined: January 19, 2015
Reputation:
30
RE: Jiihadi John Assasinated
November 13, 2015 at 7:08 pm
(November 13, 2015 at 6:53 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Why do you use the word "assassinated"?
Because I don't see any other word as applicable. We targeted a specific individual who is not a particularly great military threat. Like I said, any fool can commit murder This guy did it in a particularly horrendous way - a way which can easily be argued is a crime against all humanity. But we killed him without a trial. I can see justifying that against a particularly important military combatant like the Japanese military commander we went after in WWII but Jihadi John was just a thug.
Like I said, I'm glad we did it. It just seems like a dangerous precedent though. What if one of us does something the U.S. government REALLY doesn't like? Should we be shot down without a trial? I guess that depends on what we did but the thought of that kind of summary judgement is troublesome to me and I'm not even one of those people who have a slavish devotion to law.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Jiihadi John Assasinated
November 13, 2015 at 7:12 pm
How many other ISIS fucks have been killed by drone strikes? This guy is nothing special. Just one less scumbag on the other side.
Posts: 3290
Threads: 118
Joined: January 19, 2015
Reputation:
30
RE: Jiihadi John Assasinated
November 13, 2015 at 7:24 pm
(November 13, 2015 at 7:12 pm)Minimalist Wrote: How many other ISIS fucks have been killed by drone strikes? This guy is nothing special. Just one less scumbag on the other side.
The others we killed were high-ranking leaders or possessed special skills like bomb-making abilities. They could be justified as military targets because of that. Jihadi John was nobody special outside of being a particularly abhorrent thug. He was nothing more than the equivalent of an enemy foot soldier who just happened to be a particularly noteworthy asshole.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Jiihadi John Assasinated
November 13, 2015 at 7:29 pm
Quote: The others we killed were high-ranking leaders or possessed special skills like bomb-making abilities.
Really? Because the Pentagon said so? How much "collateral damage" was there when the missiles hit?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/world/....html?_r=0
Quote:Drone Strikes Reveal Uncomfortable Truth: U.S. Is Often Unsure About Who Will Die
Quote:By most accounts, hundreds of dangerous militants have, indeed, been killed by drones, including some high-ranking Qaeda figures. But for six years, when the heavy cloak of secrecy has occasionally been breached, the results of some strikes have often turned out to be deeply troubling.
Every independent investigation of the strikes has found far more civilian casualties than administration officials admit. Gradually, it has become clear that when operators in Nevada fire missiles into remote tribal territories on the other side of the world, they often do not know who they are killing, but are making an imperfect best guess.
Truth is the first casualty in war.... which sort of means don't believe your own propaganda.
Posts: 3290
Threads: 118
Joined: January 19, 2015
Reputation:
30
RE: Jiihadi John Assasinated
November 13, 2015 at 7:38 pm
Well there was no beating around the bush here. We deliberately targeted someone who was not a high-value military target.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Jiihadi John Assasinated
November 13, 2015 at 7:42 pm
(This post was last modified: November 13, 2015 at 7:44 pm by robvalue.)
Assassinated is exactly the word I used when I heard this news. I know what you mean AFTT, I'm conflicted about this.
It's hard to make a proper judgement without all the information. Were they planning to take this guy out specifically and waiting for the chance? Were they just taking out ISIS guys and happened to hit him? Or did they see an opportunity to kill an annoying target and take it?
I have no idea, probably few people know the whole truth here; we get told what they want us to hear.
I agree that this guy is scum and the world is better off without him. But then that applies to many, many people, and it wouldn't justify killing them out of combat. I really don't know what the "rules" are here. Is the US officially at war to such a degree that killing any confirmed ISIS guys at any time is fair game? Even if they aren't actually posing a threat at the time you kill them? Calling this self defence seems like a stretch, it's more like revenge.
Part of me wants the whole of the civilised world to get together, hunt out every last one of these fuckers and rid the world of them for good. But the other part sees a load of broken, programmed people. Mental illness would normally explain the kind of behaviour we see from ISIS, but there's just too many of them for that to be credible. Surely for at least some of them, people who would otherwise have been normal people have been fucked with so badly that they are now ruthless killing machines.
|
