Comment

Comment by Chig Champa on December 11, 2012 at 10:48pm

Troll harder, Predator. Maybe someone will notice you some day.

Comment by Predator The Spirit Of Truth on December 10, 2012 at 11:00am

Chig Champa and Batfan175 are RETARDED

Comment by The One They Called Chucky on December 8, 2012 at 8:14pm

@Batfan175 - I've been told that you have your head so far up your ass that only one man can reach you. Alas, I'm going to try.

First of all, to address what you said to me: Regarding Champa and his attacks against you. More often than not, Champa is right in an argument. He is right here too.

Your entire argument stems from the stance that Al Qaeda isn't an armed group (which you've contradicted yourself by saying that it is), that Al Qaeda isn't a state so therefore it is illegal to attack them (despite the FACT that Al Qaeda is viewed not as a group, but as a terrorist front by pretty much every country in the world, including places like Saudi Arabia, Belgium, and Northern Cyprus, the latter of which isn't viewed as a recognized country by the rest of the world), that Osama Bin Laden was not a criminal wanted by most of the International Community (including the Hague, of which the US is not a part of- hell, he was even wanted by Switzerland for financial fraud with regards to their banks!), that during the Allotobad (that's misspelled) raid that ended with his assassination, he tried to surrender peacefully (he didn't; he had an AK-47 and was using his own family as body shields), that the US only went into Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden (we were there to destroy Al Qaeda, not just Bin Laden, to destroy the Taliban, which was formerly the only government in the world that recognized them not as a terrorist group, and to give the Afghan people a government that didn't exercise mass killings, degradation of women's rights, and all in all a better government, that once it was strong enough to stand on it's own two feet we were to leave peacefully), that 9/11 was only an attack upon US citizens (people from all over the world, including Belgium, the UK, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Japan, and other countries were killed in the attack- they attacked the WORLD TRADE CENTER), that Bin Laden's assassination was condemned by the rest of the world (it was applauded, including in Pakistan- what people didn't like was that the Pakistani Government wasn't notified before the attack and that Bin Laden was probably being harbored by those within the Pakistani Government, a man responsible for terrorist attacks including the assassination of a Presidential candidate and numerous bombings throughout Pakistan since the early 90s, given that he was living less than a mile away from the Pakistani equivalent of West Point for at least 3 years), that it is illegal under International Law to name someone who isn't a citizen of your country a criminal (... it isn't- you should be familiar with the term "war criminal", shouldn't you?), that the ICJ or Hague, has only interpreted "armed attack" to only include attacks sponsored by States (funny how in the past, particularly with regards to the breakdown of the former Yugoslavia, that the ICJ has prosecuted people who don't meet that definition...), and, AND THIS IS A BIG ONE, that members of the UN are NOT allowed to take matters into their own hands (despite Article 51 of the UN Charter...).

Judging by how your argument with Champa recently devolved into an Anti-American rant, I'm guessing you ran out of steam and are only butt-hurt that your contradictions and lies and falsehoods are being shoved into your face.

Comment by Batfan175 on December 8, 2012 at 3:27pm

@Chig Champa: It helps my case because the ICJ has interpreted "armed attack" to only include attacks perpetrated by States or state-sponsored terror groups but since al qaida does not seem to be under the influence of or under direction of any government, it can be assumed that it is excluded from that Article. No doubt al qaida did a lot of damage and killed a lot of people but their violent actions do not automatically fall under the definition of "armed attack" under that Article. Read international law books and you'll see that it is generally not allowed to use self-defence against non-state actors in other countries because then you risk violating internal sovereignty of the other state. If the US wants to compromise its integrity and morality then it's on the right track, playing right into the terrorists' game because that's what they were trying to show anyway: that our society is hypocritical in the way it claims to defend certain ideals and the minute it gets attacked it throws them out the window and the US has only shown how easy it is to scare you people and how quickly you fold. Groups like the IRA have plotted and carried out crimes against governments and citizens already at the beginning of the 20th century and there have always been plots against governments going back to Guy Fawkes for example. I might have thought that our society had advanced a bit since then by not responding with authoritarian and dictatorial methods but apparently I was expecting too much from "the greatest Western democracy" as the US likes to call itself...hey if you think it's ok for a government to assassinate people they consider enemies after an attack, hypothetically, should other countries like North Korea be allowed to do the same or how about Iran if they get attacked by some nutball? Should they be allowed to assassinate people around the world because they're fighting a war against "terrorism" as a response to an "armed attack" as they would probably frame it? Of course not. No country should be allowed to do stuff like that and that also goes for the US. but what the US is doing is setting a dangerous precedent. Regarding the spending, his death did not put an end to the american involvement in Afghanistan, but his presence was claimed to be the "only" reason the US went in there....The trillions they're spending on the war in afghanistan should be cut as part of spending cuts but hey there's money to be made in war, right? Gotta keep those defence contractors happy, no?

Comment by Chig Champa on December 8, 2012 at 1:01am

Article 51 of the UN Charter:
"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."
How exactly that helps your case is beyond me. The very first sentence pretty much torpedoes your entire argument.

Bringing up Iraq is another attempt to deflect the subject away from what I'm talking about.
I never said anything in support of the invasion of Iraq. In fact I've argued numerous times during and after the invasion of Iraq that it was a wasteful and poorly planned endeavor founded on lies.

I will never say the same for the ousting of the Taliban and the war against al-Qaeda or the targeting of Osama bin Laden.
Destroying a terrorist organization and its leader that has declared war on Western Democracy, and dismantling the government that harbors them while it abuses and suppresses the Rights of its own citizens is something that I would assume every sane-minded freedom-loving person would support.

"Usually force may not be used by states without concrete evidence of the imminence of the armed attack at the very least"
Are you saying there wasn't concrete evidence of imminent attacks on the United States by al-Qaeda?
You're joking, right? Right? Seriously, fuck off.
Sorry, but if you can't understand that members of a militant group using airplanes as weapons is just as much an act of war as shelling an enemy position with artillery then your head is lodged so far up your own ass there's really no hope for you.

You're expecting us to fight insanity with buttoned-down civility, and use laws that apply to conventional warfare while we fight a foe who cares nothing for convention and tries to come up with new ways to attack us and exploit the weaknesses in our laws every single day.
While I would have personally preferred that bin Laden be forced to answer for his crimes at trial I'm not going to lose any sleep over the fact that he answered for them with a bullet in his head.

Claiming that the United States government doesn't want to waste money when it comes to fighting wars and imprisoning terrorists is pretty fucking hilarious, since that's pretty much all it does anymore.

Comment by Batfan175 on December 7, 2012 at 6:02pm

Chig Champa: in fact an attack by terrorist groups does not amount to "armed attack" under Art. 51 UN Charter, which was decided by the ICJ in the Nicaragua case (Nicaragua v United States 1984) so that there is no self-defense allowed unless the armed group has acted under government orders or that there was at least some government influence, which the US tried to shove down our throats by claiming that Iraq was behind the attack because you can only ever claim self-defense against states under international law. Preemptive or anticipated self-defence are not accepted by either the UN institutions or international customary law. The UN Security Council is repsonsible for the defining and addessing threats to international peace and usually force may not be used by states without concrete evidence of the imminence of the armed attack at the very least. Sorry, guys, your government ignored the law and decided to take the shortcut by killing him off whereas he would have been much more uselful alive and it would have sent a nice message that the US would not compromise its integrity and principles but they threw that out the window pretty easily...because it would have cost time and money.

Comment by Chig Champa on December 7, 2012 at 11:22am

How utterly ridiculous. You're saying that there's no legal grounds to declare military action against a group of terrorists who've orchestrated the murder of countless civilians?
Declaring war on the United States and having a group of sleeper agents fly airplanes in to skyscrapers and the Pentagon, and most likely the White House, strikes me as having some pretty strong "legal force".

You point out that the UN Security Council never approved armed force against non-state actors. So what?
Now everything has to be done under the auspices of a bloated and ineffective international council? Why? What legal precedence is there of that?
I wonder what the people of Rwanda, Darfur, and Bosnia would have to say to you concerning the UN's lack of action.
I could point out that every permanent country on the Security Council's Head of State or their representatives have praised the United States' actions in eliminating Osama bin Laden.
But I guess that counts for nothing, since they aren't legal documents...

Comment by Batfan175 on December 7, 2012 at 3:28am

@Evan Tsilimidos: i'm not siding with the mass murderer....i care about following the legal process and the rules established between states internationally. Just because the US wanted the guy did not mean they could just murder him because it was too difficult to get him alive. When was i ever saying he was a saint? You seem to believe that by criticising the US i am on his side when I am on the side of the law and if the law makes it more difficult for the US to get to him and they agreed to follow those international treaties and costums then they should do so. It makes the process harder, of course, but international law is in place for a reason. I would have suggested that the US help the local authorities arrest him by providing equipment and relevant information to the Pakistan government. Not every criminal is a terrorist (in Osama ben laden's case I'm fully behind you, he's a terrorist and a mass murderer). Yet, that fact has no bearing on the question of the legality of the assassination. Terrorism might be a word the government likes to use a lot for many things but that does not make it right. If i rode in on a high horse i'm sorry about it but any expert on international law will tell you that wat the US did was not evidently compatible with international law and is at the very least in a morally grey area.  Also, when have i said i defended any other state's practices? I don't condone these practices coming from any state. i am just saying that the US as a superpower has a moral commitment it needs to follow, not just a legal one. they have to stand for something or else they shouldn't claim to be following those laws and principles. Didn't mean to attack people here but the legal process matters.

@Chig Champa: Again, you seem to mistakenly think that US law is the law applicable everywhere and should therefore be followed everywhere or gives the US any legal backing internationally. That Resolution you cited might be a nice piece of paper but it only has any sort of significance domestically and does not invalidate international customary law or international law treaties. I could declare a war on North Korea right now on my own....what does that do? Nothing. It's like people on facebook putting up messages saying they don't want their pictures used....it has no legally binding effect whatsoever and neither has this declaration of war by Al Qaida. In essence it shows that people don't know how teh law works. Al Qaida is not an enemy government and at the very least it is uncear whether they fit the LEGAL definition of "armed organized group" and therefore whatever they say or declare has no legal force whatsoever. the UN SEcurity Council has never officially allowed armed force to be used against non-governmental forces. Am I the only one believing that the lack of due process evidenced in this matter makes the whole affair's legality questionable? And surely those SEALs were well-trained enough to get him if they'd really wanted to....

Comment by Chig Champa on December 7, 2012 at 12:36am

Who said anything about drone strikes? Not me. So sorry, but your weak attempt to deflect the subject wont work.

I'm talking about Osama bin Laden, the head of al-Qaeda, a group of terrorists who've murdered American and non-American soldiers and civilians numerous times in the past, and have openly declared war on the United States and Western Democracy.
He was the leader of an armed faction that was and still is in clear and obvious, if sometimes unconventional, armed conflict with the United States and other coalition forces. Asserting otherwise is complete and utter nonsense.

You claim that you back your argument with legal precedence, but you don't. You cite a bunch of legal documents to back up your claims but your claims themselves are ludicrous.
You're bringing up UN charters and the Geneva Convention, then presenting your opinion like these documents somehow add gravity and legitimacy to what you're saying.
"Article 19, America is a bunch of bullies! Harumph!! Geneva Convention, al-Qaeda are just misunderstood ice cream salesmen!!"

I cited S.J. Res. 23 in my original response to you.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution states,
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Guess who was behind the terrorist attacks that took place on September 11, 2001? Al-Qaeda.
Who's the head of al-Qaeda? Osama fucking bin Laden.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution is an open call to arms by the United States against al-Qaeda and bin Laden.

Al-Qaeda has issued a fatwa against the US, the US has issued a resolution of armed opposition towards al-Qaeda.
Lahdi-fuckin-dah, two armed factions opposing each other.... fancy that...

Comment by Evan Tsilimidos on December 6, 2012 at 8:05pm

@Batfan175 Oh well, I guess you're absolutely right! I'm a terrorist causing terror in a country full of and run by criminals! We had no right killing Osama, he was a saint! I suppose having his suicidal goons fly planes into our landmarks killing thousands of innocent Americans was a justice to the world! Seeing as you're a Batman fan, as am I, I guess I can just quote Talia "Innocent is a strong word to throw around [America]". Yep, we sure are the scum of the Earth! All of us! And truly, wherever you're from, everyone knows true justice and values, and would NEVER even consider assassinating an innocent man in a different country!

Hmmm, actually, on second thought, fuck you and the horse you rode in on! Nothing worse than some scumbag siding with a mass murderer while hiding behind his computer! You're no better than him! Go fuck yourself! ...go shit in your hat!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page