31-01-2002 01:24									#331
	Put an end to popups!

Ah yeah.

quote: mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders v. tr. To kill (another human) unlawfully. To kill brutally or inhumanly. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language. Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.

Thou Shalt Not Kill Unlawfully.

During war, all killings are acts of war, and therefore legal. The al-Quieda are not PoWs, because it was not a war, therefore it was murder.
Either it was not murder, and they deserve Geneva protection, or it was murder, and against the word of God.

	31-01-2002 01:31									#332
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat Either it was not murder, and they deserve Geneva protection,

Terrorists have never been subject the Geneva Convention protections and never will be. Otherwise, Germany should be tried for the war crimes it commited in crushing the the Baader-Meinhof Gang.

	31-01-2002 01:34									#333
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

your copies of the Bible are based on greek, hebrew and aramaic texts.

in greek it is «ou phoneuseis» «phonos» translation is (more or less) «murder» so Monneypenny is right.

That said,

where on earth did Jesus said that killing in war is NOT murder?

what is murder?

that dictionary you used said to kill unlawfully.

what is law?

law is primareli based on the everchanging major moral foundations of its society. They change frequently so does the law. So does murder.


if only He would have said «kill» instead of «murder»


it sounds like a lawyer's trick. and Jesus, I thought, was no lawyer.


maybe when we reach a level of morality and its reflection on the law where «murder» and «killing» have the same identical meaning we would have reached «salvation»

	31-01-2002 01:34									#334
	Increase the size of your Attachments

By your reasoning, the Holocaust was justified. As were the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

So long as our ignorance protects us from the pain, suffering and death our decisions & actions incur on others will we remain standing on what we deem the moral high ground. Ignorance IS strength.

I find it pathetically funny how we try to build a rational society around our irrational behaviour.

- Maj

	31-01-2002 01:49									#335
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Terrorists have never been subject the Geneva Convention protections and never will be. Otherwise, Germany should be tried for the war crimes it commited in crushing the the Baader-Meinhof Gang.

So killing terrorists is legal now? Could lead to some interesting court cases... "I plead innocence - He's a terrorist, he mailed me anthrax"

quote: that dictionary you used said to kill unlawfully. what is law? law is primareli based on the everchanging major moral foundations of its society. They change frequently so does the law. So does murder. if only He would have said «kill» instead of «murder»

Yeah, then I wouldn't have had to resort to lengthy arguments to justify not killing them.

	31-01-2002 01:53									#336
	Ok, now I'm confused. Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat So killing terrorists is legal now?

Do you enjoy being clueless? Becuase I'd really like to know where I said that.

	31-01-2002 01:58									#337
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Do you enjoy being clueless? Becuase I'd really like to know where I said that.

1. Terrorists are not subject to the Geneva Convention because they are not PoWs.
2. This is because they are not fighting in a "war" as such.
3. Any killing outside war is illegal
4. Any illegal killing is muder
5. Killed terrorists are victims of murder.
6. Killing terrorists in forbidden by "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder"

	31-01-2002 03:10									#338
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat 1. Terrorists are not subject to the Geneva Convention because they are not PoWs. 2. This is because they are not fighting in a "war" as such.

I'm with you so far.

quote: 3. Any killing outside war is illegal

Now I see where we part company on the logic train. Where does the right of self-defense (either personal or national) fit into all of this?

	31-01-2002 03:15									#339
	Inflate your Upload Space

Just to clarify where we're going with all of this, can anyone define what exactly the terms legal and illegal mean, and who should be the ones to define them?

- Maj

	31-01-2002 03:21									#340
	*shrug* Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Now I see where we part company on the logic train. Where does the right of self-defense (either personal or national) fit into all of this?

Dunno. Use of reasonable force? Killing isn't really necessary with ~5 billion people on your side, and the might of most of the world.
Failing that, the UN Declaration of Human Rights gives the right to life, yes?

	31-01-2002 03:48									#341
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Where does the right of self-defense (either personal or national) fit into all of this?

Self-Defense is only legal in the case of clear and present danger. Let“s say you caught them at the airport with a bomb in their suitcase.

No one ever had a legal right to go to war as a supposed act of preventive self-defense.

	31-01-2002 03:53									#342
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tribune Self-Defense is only legal in the case of clear and present danger.

Are you telling me that Al Qaeda doesn't present a clear and present threat to both the welfare of American citizens and to her national security interests?

	31-01-2002 04:37									#343
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I am sure Hitler considered the rest of the world a clear and present threat to both the welfare of German citizens and to her national security interests. (That didn“t legally entitle him to anything, however.)

	31-01-2002 06:02									#344
	Support Apolyton

It usually helps to move a debate along if you actually attempt to answer the question without resorting to logical fallacies.

	31-01-2002 19:35									#345
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Since when is a perfect analogy a logical fallacy?

	31-01-2002 19:37									#346
	Increase the size of your Attachments

But I“ll accomodate you: It“s legally irrelevant if you think someone presents a threat to you. Even if your intuition is correct, that still doesn“t entitle you to a preemptive strike. Nothing does.

	31-01-2002 20:43									#347
	Your arguement is flawed, Comrade. Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tribune Even if your intuition is correct, that still doesn“t entitle you to a preemptive strike. Nothing does.

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter permits the use of preemptive strikes as a matter of self-defense when a nation is threatened.

	31-01-2002 21:11									#348
	Re: I wonder how Americans would feel if their soldiers were kept like the Al Qaeda POW's Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse Have you seen that set up in Cuba? They are keeping the prisoners in what looks like dog kennels.

Well, they are dogs, aren't they?

You talk about the US being the only country that refuses to consider these maggots 'prisoners of war.' Intereseting. I wonder how in how many countries would have these dirtbags still be alive. It's absolutely amazing how anyone has an ounce of pity on them. But then again, it the presence of attitudes like this that led to the dismantling of the intelligence communities and the necessary preventitive measures to have avoided this tragedy in the first place.
.

	31-01-2002 21:17									#349
	Here's an interesting article I found: Got spare money?

Preemptive Military Strikes: A Viable Option Against International Terrorism?

	31-01-2002 22:59									#350
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Article 51 of the United Nations Charter permits the use of preemptive strikes as a matter of self-defense when a nation is threatened.

So maybe "911" was a pre-emptive strike on behalf of the Taliban?

Good article:

quote: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1990/ADR.htm It is important to remember that the terrorist threat will not be easily resolved. The use of military force is not a unique solution. It must be used in concert with other instruments of national power in a coordinated national strategy to influence terrorists and states that support to cease their campaign of terror.

quote: Originally posted by RUFFHAUS 8 Well, they are dogs, aren't they?

No, they are human beings. I said it before, you do not change species via your actions. Learn some biology before making sweeping statements. Metaphorics do not hold up in court.

	31-01-2002 23:56									#351
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat So maybe "911" was a pre-emptive strike on behalf of the Taliban?

Maybe the moon is made of green cheese as well. At least be somewhat serious in questions.

quote: Good article:

I thought so. All though some of its more powerful arguements aren't in the executive summary.

	01-02-2002 00:04									#352
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Maybe the moon is made of green cheese as well.

Well Bush wasn't going to let the Taliban get away with being all Talibanny for ever now was he? No. So why not attack the USA first. Demoralise you. Get the first strike in to protect themselves [er... scrap that]

quote: At least be somewhat serious in questions.

Its more fun not to be. I have to argue creationism tomorrow...

	01-02-2002 00:12									#353
	Re: Your arguement is flawed, Comrade. Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Article 51 of the United Nations Charter permits the use of preemptive strikes as a matter of self-defense when a nation is threatened.

That is a lie.

All that the Charter allows you is defend yourself (within your borders, of course.)

"Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

	01-02-2002 00:59									#354
	What did you think of the article, Comrade? Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: That is a lie.

No, it isn't. There now that you've been refuted, here's some additional facts to consider.

Under Article 51 of the United Nations charter nations have the right to individual and collective protection against armed aggression. Additionally, Article 2 of the charter clearly defines what is unlawful intervention and lawful interposition. Essentially, intervention is the intrusion into another sovereign nation with the intent of changing the existing government, employing occupation forces for an extended period, or otherwise altering the ability of the government to exercise self-rule. Interposition, on the other hand, is for a "limited purpose" and "limited objective".

The rest of the argument can be read in the article I linked to.

	01-02-2002 01:24									#355
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

"Additionally, Article 2 of the charter clearly defines what is unlawful intervention and lawful interposition."

The guy is blatantly lying. There is *no* such thing as 'lawful interposition.' He is making it up, and you are too lazy to check. Armed aggression is illegal under any circumstances.

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

	01-02-2002 02:42									#356
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tribune The guy is blatantly lying. There is *no* such thing as 'lawful interposition.' He is making it up, and you are too lazy to check.

You've piqued my interest. If you can string together a post longer than three sentence a post streak that has been your forte since you enterest the thread that explains to me why the arguement is flawed, I'll give it the consideration I feel that it deserves and consider changing my opinion.

	01-02-2002 02:59									#357
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

He has no argument! Can“t you read? 'Lawful Interposition' simply isn“t in the Charter.

	01-02-2002 04:20									#358
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tribune He has no argument! Can“t you read? 'Lawful Interposition' simply isn“t in the Charter.

That's still three sentences and not within the bounds I set forth. Please do try again.

	01-02-2002 04:22									#359
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

He has no argument! Can“t you read? 'Lawful Interposition' simply isn“t in the Charter. Discuss.

	01-02-2002 04:25									#360
	Put an end to popups!

Bravo, IM. I tip my hat to you, good sir.