Britain accuses Putin of sanctioning Alexander Litvinenko assassination

Jean said:
We can have a war against entities we don't recognize as states (like we did in the Civil War). While I am against the use of "war" against something as broad as an ideology ("terrorism"), a specific entity like AQ or ISIS is a different matter.
Click to expand...

I think the semantic mishap that is the War on Terrorism was simply Bush being too big of a coward to admit he was launching a military campaign against Islamic extremism. He should have specified that his war was with the Taliban government and the al-Queda terror network, because it would have spared us all of these years past (and more still to come) of debating over who and what we are fighting against.
 
There was no formal ' declaration of war ' between the participants in the American Civil War then. It was an internal conflict between two opposing ideologies. It was the same in the English Civil War and the same applies to all civil wars.
In the case of Bush's ' war on terror ' there was no identifiable enemy, certainly no state to ' declare war ' upon and the UK has never made any formal ' declaration of war ' against ISIL, al-Qaeda or any other ideological enemy- because such niceties belong in the past.
So Cameron was acting illegally when he extrajudicially killed two British citizens in Syria. He acted as an assassin, ergo it is hypocritical to accuse Putin of wrongdoing- even if he was guilty and that will never be proven. To accuse him without proof follows in the same criminal vein as killing British citizens in Syria without due process. The same goes for the extrajudicial killing of American citizens supposedly fighting an ideological war against the US. Those who wish to create another cold war- arms dealers to a man- enlist the help of governments who wish to exert tighter control over their populations and portraying Putin as the arch-criminal suits their purposes very well.
Israel has made international assassination fashionable and it is a useful tool now for all hegemonic societies, the UK, U.S.A , Israel, Saudia-Arabia etc., etc. The important thing is that we all oppose assassination as individuals and that we don't attempt to justify that foul and illegal route on the grounds that it is acceptible because ' our side ' is the assassin. It is illegal- and if we don't comply with the law then there's no future for any of us- not even top-dog alpha international players.
 
Last edited:
moon2012 said:
Sure, you can have a war with anybody- but a formal ' declaration of war ' is the preserve of states- otherwise there's no authority to declare it.



There wasn't any ' declaration of war ' to start the American Civil War, as far as I'm aware;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Outbreak_of_the_war
If there was, please point it out.
Click to expand...

Declaration of war is a technicality. I'm pretty damn sure the Vietnamese recognize the Vietnamese War as such regardless of the fact that some internal constitutional procedures regarding declaration of war on our part were not performed.
 
Cameron has openly admitted to using assassination, though he hasn't actually got his hands dirty. Not long since he wanted to attack the legal government of Syria, now he wants to murder people in the ISIS zone, and in both cases wants to support a few terrorists whom he likes to pretend are fighting ISIS not Assad. He is a simple Etonian ass.
 
Eno L. Camino said:
I think the semantic mishap that is the War on Terrorism was simply Bush being too big of a coward to admit he was launching a military campaign against Islamic extremism. He should have specified that his war was with the Taliban government and the al-Queda terror network, because it would have spared us all of these years past (and more still to come) of debating over who and what we are fighting against.
Click to expand...
Not to mention they were a clear and present danger to our national security where as the other...ahem....issues were distractions.

The decision to go to war with Iraq in 2003 was simply the worst strategic decision the U.S. has made since Vietnam. It has a similar quality of having destabilized an entire region too. Lots of unforeseen consequences. Lots of bad ones.
 
Jean said:
Declaration of war is a technicality. I'm pretty damn sure the Vietnamese recognize the Vietnamese War as such regardless of the fact that some internal constitutional procedures regarding declaration of war on our part were not performed.
Click to expand...
They call it "The American War".
 
Jean said:
Declaration of war is a technicality. I'm pretty damn sure the Vietnamese recognize the Vietnamese War as such regardless of the fact that some internal constitutional procedures regarding declaration of war on our part were not performed.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but a ' declaration of war ' used to serve as a legal basis for the actions of states. These days assassination rules. The point of this discussion is that here we have one self-confessed assassin criticising the unproven actions of another head of state. Given that assassination in the now the norm, don't you think that a tad duplicitous ?
 
Not that it matters what we think. Government is so reliant upon hypocrisy and duplicity that it doesn't even bother to try to maintain its moral image beyond claiming to ' keep us safe '. Once it has created a bogeyman- Putin in this instance- it will add to that perceived threat in order to frighten its population into obedience and blind support. Of course, once you are, personally, aware of this and outside of government propaganda influence you become a ' danger to the state ' yourself. Once thus branded you can be marginalised- if you're lucky- or incarcerated if you ain't. If suspected of being actively opposed to government propaganda programs you become a target for possible assassination .

Don't buy ' Catcher in the rye ' on your credit card.
 
moon2012 said:
Not that it matters what we think. Government is so reliant upon hypocrisy and duplicity that it doesn't even bother to try to maintain its moral image beyond claiming to ' keep us safe '. Once it has created a bogeyman- Putin in this instance- it will add to that perceived threat in order to frighten its population into obedience and blind support. Of course, once you are, personally, aware of this and outside of government propaganda influence you become a ' danger to the state ' yourself. Once thus branded you can be marginalised- if you're lucky- or incarcerated if you ain't. If suspected of being actively opposed to government propaganda programs you become a target for possible assassination .

Don't buy ' Catcher in the rye ' on your credit card.
Click to expand...

Putin is reputed to have spirited away at least 40 billion, one day the Russians will wake up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...200-billion-fortune-and-if-so-does-it-matter/
 
moon2012 said:
That's how you interpret support for justice and the rule of law. It equates to poorly-aimed mud-slinging. Does that brand you as a myopic mud-slinger ? Well.....er.......yes, it does.
Click to expand...
It is the usual tired old McCarthyite bullshit. The buggers who quack this quack are long intellectually dead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top