GOP candidates calling for use of terrorism against civilians

[rambone]

Wouldn't it be something if groups of aggressive warlords went on TV and said they were going to kill American citizens? You'd probably call them TERRORISTS right? Well this political circus act is taking a turn for the worse. Multiple Republican candidates have stood before the nation -- and the world -- and advocated the use of terrorism against civilians in other countries. Countries that we are NOT at war with.

According to the Department of Defense:​

Terrorism: The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
​

Now apply that to the rhetoric coming from American politicians.


Newt Gingrich said on the CBS debate that he supports murdering Iranian civilians.

Newt Gingrich Advocates Assassinating Iranian Scientists as Drum Beat for War Continues at GOP Debate

Sure. First of all, maximum covert operations to block and disrupt the Iranian program, including taking out their scientists, including breaking up their systems, all of it covertly, all of it deniable.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rMZH587p1A[/ame]



Rick Santorum made it pretty clear that he backs the murder of Iranian civilians to incur fear and fulfill his political agenda. (i.e. terrorism)

Santorum: Dead Foreign Scientists a 'Wonderful Thing'

"On occasion, scientists working on the nuclear program in Iran turn up dead," he explained. "I think that's a wonderful thing, candidly."

Sources around the world are picking up on the increasingly aggressive and jingoistic attitude of American politicians toward Iran. What a positive example America sets for the world, for freedom, and for democracy.

'US, Israel blatantly support terrorism'
US Republican Presidential candidates have openly called for supporting Israel in sabotaging Iran's nuclear program through terrorism and assassinating Iranian scientists.
​

P.S. We are NOT at war with Iran.

P.P.S. WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH IRAN.

 

[NYFelon]

Wouldn't it be something if groups of aggressive warlords went on TV and said they were going to kill American citizens? You'd probably call them TERRORISTS right? Well this political circus act is taking a turn for the worse. Multiple Republican candidates have stood before the nation -- and the world -- and advocated the use of terrorism against civilians in other countries. Countries that we are NOT at war with.

According to the Department of Defense:​

Terrorism: The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
​

Now apply that to the rhetoric coming from American politicians.


Newt Gingrich said on the CBS debate that he supports murdering Iranian civilians.

Newt Gingrich Advocates Assassinating Iranian Scientists as Drum Beat for War Continues at GOP Debate
​

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rMZH587p1A



Rick Santorum made it pretty clear that he backs the murder of Iranian civilians to incur fear and fulfill his political agenda. (i.e. terrorism)

Santorum: Dead Foreign Scientists a 'Wonderful Thing'
​

Sources around the world are picking up on the increasingly aggressive and jingoistic attitude of American politicians toward Iran. What a positive example America sets for the world, for freedom, and for democracy.

'US, Israel blatantly support terrorism'
US Republican Presidential candidates have openly called for supporting Israel in sabotaging Iran's nuclear program through terrorism and assassinating Iranian scientists.
​

P.S. We are NOT at war with Iran.

P.P.S. WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH IRAN.

I'm not for action against Iran right now. We have too much on our plates as it is at home to be engaging in another costly foreign "expedition." I'm going to have to disagree that last part. The Islamic Republic of Iran committed a blatant act of war against the United States when it laid siege to the embassy. Certainly we have not declared war on Iran, and I don't know that there's any statute of limitations on declarations of war; but to say we don't have just cause is not correct. Granted, that's not the cause being used to rally the effort, but it is legitimate.

 

[The Meach]

Agreed. Whatever happed to declarations of war. And our congressional representatives being involved in our military actions?

 

[dross]

Agreed. Whatever happed to declarations of war. And our congressional representatives being involved in our military actions?

What's a declaration of war?

When have congressional representatives not been involved in military actions?

 

[dross]

When has it ever been wrong to kill civilians in the furtherance of a country's foreign policy goals? How is it wrong?

 

[Bond 281]

When has it ever been wrong to kill civilians in the furtherance of a country's foreign policy goals? How is it wrong?

It's only wrong when anyone other than the US does it. Duh.

 

[dross]

It's only wrong when anyone other than the US does it. Duh.

There seems to be an assumption out there that hasn't been defended.

When has it ever not been okay to kill civilians to advance a nation's foreign policy interests?

No nation ever likes it if it's THEIR civilians getting killed, so put that aside.

When has it ever been wrong?

 

[rambone]

When has it ever been wrong to kill civilians in the furtherance of a country's foreign policy goals? How is it wrong?

The initiation of force is always wrong.

 

[Bond 281]

There seems to be an assumption out there that hasn't been defended.

When has it ever not been okay to kill civilians to advance a nation's foreign policy interests?

No nation ever likes it if it's THEIR civilians getting killed, so put that aside.

When has it ever been wrong?

I can't see how it's ever not been wrong. Killing Iranian scientists so they don't get a nuke is like you murdering your neighbor because he's wanting to buy a gun. On a different scale, sure, but the moral basis is the exact same. We're not at war with Iran, we trade with them, and I couldn't really imagine them even trying to start a war with us. Killing people because of what they might do, or might have the capability of doing, instead of something they've done is, as far as I know, always been generally considered wrong. You don't shoot your neighbor because he has a gun, or might get a gun, in the paranoid fear that because he has a gun he could murder you. That's wholly illogical.

As for the whole they might support terrorism garbage, India and Pakistan already have nukes and far, far more terrorists operating there. If you follow that line of thought that we need to kill anyone who might get the same weapon we do...well, they should be higher on the list. And why not start assassinating Chinese while we're at it. They're a bigger hypothetical threat anyway. I know that nations have always been willing to kill civilians in order to achieve some policy or "security", but I can't see how it's ever been right, or something we should condone.

If you believe it's perfectly right to murder people for your own personal interests, please explain your position.

 

[dross]

We we wrong to kill civilians in WWII?

 

[Bond 281]

We we wrong to kill civilians in WWII?

Are we talking about killing civilians within the context of a war or just to support foreign policy interests? They're different things.

 

[rambone]

We we wrong to kill civilians in WWII?

We were not the initiator of force.

I do think it is wrong to purposely target civilians.

Also the analogy breaks because of the whole thing about being actually "at war".

 

[dross]

Are we talking about killing civilians within the context of a war or just to support foreign policy interests? They're different things.

I don't think they are. Just different levels and levels of justification.

I'm just trying to get at people's premises here. When these matters are discussed in the context of an actual situation, the principle gets lost.

I believe that the initiation of force is wrong. But when is it the initiation of force? It gets complicated very fast.

Let's assume we get stranded on a desert island. Our airplane crash landed. We have people from lots of different countries on the plane.

There is no law and no authority to appeal to.

Is everything as simple as some would make it? What if we discovered that a group of our neighbors were planning to attack us tonight and steal our coconut stash. Are we required to wait until they actually attack? Or can we attack them first while we have the advantage before they finish making bows and arrows?

What if half the people are living on one side of the island and half on the other and someone keeps stealing our stuff at night. Are we required to know exactly who is stealing it before we can retaliate?

What if some of the people who crash landed go to live on another part of the island and then we discover that some of the people there are being held against their will. Do we have the right to got to their aid, or must we wait until they attack us?

I find that people resist these discussions because they are afraid their inconsistency of thought will be revealed. It's what allows Clinton to go to war without going to the U.N. or to Congress and get supported by the same people who say Bush took us to war unilaterally, even though he had U.N. approval and Congress voted to authorize him. Some are lying and know it, some just have sloppy thinking.

So, why can we kill civilians in Germany, who never attacked us, BTW, but we can't kill civilians in Iran, when their government supported our enemies in a recent war?

 

[dross]

We were not the initiator of force.

I do think it is wrong to purposely target civilians.

Also the analogy breaks because of the whole thing about being actually "at war".

Whether or not we're "at war" is just a matter of a vote in Congress. That doesn't change the principle at stake, it just changes the legality according to our laws.

This is why I hate these arguments. It's just a constant shifting of focus to avoid dealing with the core issues. Pin you down here, you shift the discussion to there. Pin you down there, you jump somewhere else.

 

[dross]

We were not the initiator of force.
".

We were in Germany.

 

[Bond 281]

I don't think they are. Just different levels and levels of justification.

I'm just trying to get at people's premises here. When these matters are discussed in the context of an actual situation, the principle gets lost.

I believe that the initiation of force is wrong. But when is it the initiation of force? It gets complicated very fast.

Let's assume we get stranded on a desert island. Our airplane crash landed. We have people from lots of different countries on the plane.

There is no law and no authority to appeal to.

Is everything as simple as some would make it? What if we discovered that a group of our neighbors were planning to attack us tonight and steal our coconut stash. Are we required to wait until they actually attack? Or can we attack them first while we have the advantage before they finish making bows and arrows?

What if half the people are living on one side of the island and half on the other and someone keeps stealing our stuff at night. Are we required to know exactly who is stealing it before we can retaliate?

What if some of the people who crash landed go to live on another part of the island and then we discover that some of the people there are being held against their will. Do we have the right to got to their aid, or must we wait until they attack us?

I find that people resist these discussions because they are afraid their inconsistency of thought will be revealed. It's what allows Clinton to go to war without going to the U.N. or to Congress and get supported by the same people who say Bush took us to war unilaterally, even though he had U.N. approval and Congress voted to authorize him. Some are lying and know it, some just have sloppy thinking.

So, why can we kill civilians in Germany, who never attacked us, BTW, but we can't kill civilians in Iran, when their government supported our enemies in a recent war?

So since the US government trained and supported our enemies too does that mean they can kill US citizens indiscriminately? I think we were wrong to get into these last few wars, and there lies my distinction. If a war is justified then some killing of civilians who are supporting the enemy through industry or whatever, then fine. If a war is unjustified to begin with then we can't justify killing civilians in the pursuit of that war. Kind of like how you can't kill the cops pointing guns at you justifiably if you are mid bank robbery.

As far as your island scenarios go:

If we know a group is planning to attack, for a certainty, then we can of course attack them first. Planning and preparing for an attack can I think be likened to pointing a gun at someone with intent to shoot them. There is justification in that scenario, but that's much different than attacking people simply because they are capable of attacking you.

If one person of another group is stealing from your group, I don't think you can go attack that whole group on that basis. Kind of like how just because a few muslims from the middle east committed an act of terror doesn't justify us invading a random country in the middle east.

And as for the people being held against their will, yes I think we have a right to go to their aid. That being said, let's assume that it's only a sort of governing body in the other group holding a few people prisoner, while most of the people in the group aren't directly responsible. I don't think we would be justified in killing a bunch of the people who aren't responsible just to save a few captives. This I see paralleled in that terrorists aren't justified in killing civilians just because their governments and military committed an offense.

The problem I see in the line of reasoning that you can kill civilians because of what a few people in their country do is that you can then justify any murderous atrocity by falling back on that. "Oh we can bomb the WTC because the US government bombed some towns." "Oh now some muslims attacked us so we can justifiably kill tens of thousands of people and invade muslim countries that those people weren't even from."

Where does it end? As I see it, the line of reasoning never does end. Because if 5 people from group A kill a guy in group B for no reason, then that guy's family from group B kill those 5 people AND a few more (justifiably, of course), then the family of those few other people they killed retaliate and you get an endless, "justifiable" circle of violence, all because one unjust act was committed. I don't agree that retaliation for one act of injustice justifies another act of injustice. It's like "Oh you punched me, I'm going to punch you back, then punch your neighbor because he loaned you a wrench one time." That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Expat]

I'm not for action against Iran right now. We have too much on our plates as it is at home to be engaging in another costly foreign "expedition." I'm going to have to disagree that last part. The Islamic Republic of Iran committed a blatant act of war against the United States when it laid siege to the embassy. Certainly we have not declared war on Iran, and I don't know that there's any statute of limitations on declarations of war; but to say we don't have just cause is not correct. Granted, that's not the cause being used to rally the effort, but it is legitimate.

And they have also been involved in supplying and training the folks putting out the IEDs in Iraq. That would certainly seem to qualify as an act of war.

 

[Mosinguy]

So we want to stop an Irainian nuclear arms program by publicly announcing we want to kill their scientists. Smooth move? Sure we don't like Iran but what law is there that says they can't have nuclear weapons?

We don't have the right to police the world. Let them do what they want to do. Sure it's freaky to think the middle east has nuke capabilities but what can we do about it? Nothing unless we want to move our troops a little farther east the next time.

 

[Expat]

So we want to stop an Irainian nuclear arms program by publicly announcing we want to kill their scientists. Smooth move? Sure we don't like Iran but what law is there that says they can't have nuclear weapons?

We don't have the right to police the world. Let them do what they want to do. Sure it's freaky to think the middle east has nuke capabilities but what can we do about it? Nothing unless we want to move our troops a little farther east the next time.

So the neighbors are out throwing rocks at your kids on a regular basis. The police say it isn't their problem, your kids are probably instigating it. You get word that the neighbors are going to shoot your kids instead of just throwing rocks. The police say, call us when it happens. What do you do, continue to lay down for them like a *****.

 

[dross]

So we want to stop an Irainian nuclear arms program by publicly announcing we want to kill their scientists. Smooth move? Sure we don't like Iran but what law is there that says they can't have nuclear weapons?

What law said Hitler couldn't invade Poland? What law said Germany couldn't deal with people in their country however they liked?

Is that really your reasoning? We have to consult some rule before we decide whether to let people who talk about wiping other people off the earth have the means to carry out their threats? People who have been supplying and training our enemies causing the death of our soldiers?

How about the law of ain't gonna happen?

"Golly gee, sure is a shame about them killing all those people with a nuclear weapon after they said they would. Nothing we could have done about it, though. I checked my Hoyle's rules for nuclear proliferation and it says that because we have nukes then every nutjob dangerous country in the world can have them too, and we just have to let them."

Okay, I don't usually engage in this, but what is the world coming too? Don't bullies take people's lunch money anymore? Are we that gentle and sweet and fair? No wonder the ladies these days complain about men not being men.

A couple of rules (not personal to the guy I replied to):

When the bully asks for your lunch money, tell him to F off. If he even looks at you crossways ever again, smash his teeth down his throat.

Next time you're with a woman (a real one, not a digital one) don't be afraid to ask for what you want and to mess up her hair a little bit. Trust me, she'll thank you for it.

Finally, when a nutjob regime tells you they want to kill a lot of people 'cause a supernatural being told them to, and then they set about acquiring the means to do so, you don't have to get permission to stop them. You can just go right ahead and do it. Some people won't understand. Ignore them. They're meaningless and they waste their votes anyway.

Now, stop reading self help relationship books, stop downloading porn and go talk to a real live woman, and for all that's manly, start understanding that our way is actually, demonstrably BETTER, and finally, stop asking for permission to survive.