[Serious] Tit for tat.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yup. As the acknowledged leader of a recognized terrorist organization which was the aggressor in that conflict, he was a legitimate target. Standing on his porch or having a bath or prostrating himself in prayer.

Boru

I'm sure that the Russians would agree.

Every nation agrees, yes.  It's the kind of thing a nation claims a right to, because ofc they would.

The practical alternative is to let butchers butcher without so much as the hint of consequence provided they do so remotely. Kings used to run a similar con - where kings don't kill kings - as that would be uncouth. All the fighting and dying is for the little people in contained battlefields. It's all pretty terrible, any way we go with it - but we left the field of perfectly ethical situations and unconstrained ethical choices the minute we started talking about human conflict, didn't we? There's a good chance that there is no ethical resolution to some problems.

[Rev. Rye]

It seems to me that the United States' killing of Ayman al-Zawahiri is just going to perpetuate the cycle of violence in our World, perhaps leading to a nuclear holocaust.  Why not take the high road and renounce extrajudicial executions?  In spite of being a mass murderer, as a human being, Ayman al-Zawahiri was still entitled to due process under the Law.  I find it ironic that President Joe Biden, who opposes the death penalty, would authorize the deliberate killing of another human being.

Does al Qaeda actually have any allies whose words are backed with nuclear weapons?

[The Grand Nudger]

That was one of their huge fuckups. Russia has no love for islamic militants. They're the wrong flavor of islamic militant for aspirant iran. Isreal lolno. So what's the smart play..why...to attack the us, ofc!

That will surely make things better for your lives back home.

[Jehanne]

I'm sure that the Russians would agree.

Every nation agrees, yes.  It's the kind of thing a nation claims a right to, because ofc they would.

The practical alternative is to let butchers butcher without so much as the hint of consequence provided they do so remotely. Kings used to run a similar con - where kings don't kill kings - as that would be uncouth. All the fighting and dying is for the little people in contained battlefields. It's all pretty terrible, any way we go with it - but we left the field of perfectly ethical situations and unconstrained ethical choices the minute we started talking about human conflict, didn't we? There's a good chance that there is no ethical resolution to some problems.

Why not just arrest murderers?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Every nation agrees, yes.  It's the kind of thing a nation claims a right to, because ofc they would.

The practical alternative is to let butchers butcher without so much as the hint of consequence provided they do so remotely. Kings used to run a similar con - where kings don't kill kings - as that would be uncouth.  All the fighting and dying is for the little people in contained battlefields.  It's all pretty terrible, any way we go with it - but we left the field of perfectly ethical situations and unconstrained ethical choices the minute we started talking about human conflict, didn't we?  There's a good chance that there is no ethical resolution to some problems.

Why not just arrest murderers?

We DO arrest murderers, but that’s not applicable to this. Military combatants - which, under the rules of war, includes most terrorists and terrorist organizations - are not murderers. 

Killers, yes. War criminals, frequently. But not every killing is a murder.

Boru

[Jehanne]

Why not just arrest murderers?

We DO arrest murderers, but that’s not applicable to this. Military combatants - which, under the rules of war, includes most terrorists and terrorist organizations - are not murderers. 

Killers, yes. War criminals, frequently. But not every killing is a murder.

Boru

By the same standards, terrorists could kill most Americans; just label them "combatants". Who decides such labels??

[The Grand Nudger]

Every nation agrees, yes.  It's the kind of thing a nation claims a right to, because ofc they would.

The practical alternative is to let butchers butcher without so much as the hint of consequence provided they do so remotely. Kings used to run a similar con - where kings don't kill kings - as that would be uncouth.  All the fighting and dying is for the little people in contained battlefields.  It's all pretty terrible, any way we go with it - but we left the field of perfectly ethical situations and unconstrained ethical choices the minute we started talking about human conflict, didn't we?  There's a good chance that there is no ethical resolution to some problems.

Why not just arrest murderers?

In the case in question?  We did try that..again, told to pound sand - that's how the war started.

We DO arrest murderers, but that’s not applicable to this. Military combatants - which, under the rules of war, includes most terrorists and terrorist organizations - are not murderers. 

Killers, yes. War criminals, frequently. But not every killing is a murder.

Boru

By the same standards, terrorists could kill most Americans; just label them "combatants".  Who decides such labels??

Terrorists could and do say any number of things - and honestly..they don't need any such justification...but who cares?  Most americans aren't combatants.  Word..what does it mean?

In this case, it means that the us is committed to recognizing the difference between combatants and civilians, whereas the terrorists are not, and only pay lip service to such notions for propagandistic effect.

[Jehanne]

Well, like it or not, the Taliban are running the show in Afghanistan, and are the recognized government there, and so, the United States just committed an act of war, by their lights at least.

[The Grand Nudger]

Actually..the taliban..they say..is a new taliban. It's super inconvenient for them to have that guy killed in kabul - potentially violating the doha agreement .

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Well, like it or not, the Taliban are running the show in Afghanistan, and are the recognized government there, and so, the United States just committed an act of war, by their lights at least.

al-Zawhiri is not and has never been Taliban.

Boru