Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy

[HouseDivided]

Yup.

And the irony of not knowing how to spell that particular word.

And the whole apple don’t fall far from the tree element of it.

Man, I’m surprised some of you guys take me so seriously.

Got it. My bad.

[DCHawk1]

But you're acting like you expected nothing negative to come out of the assassination, which is odd to say the least.

No I'm not. I've never said anything of the sort.

I just think it's morally reprehensible to blame anyone other than the Mullahs for the downing of the airliner.

You're making a "root causes" argument, which, in moral terms, flatly denies agency and releases those responsible for the totality of blame.

If you take your argument to the logical conclusion, I would guess that would mean that blame falls squarely on the shoulders of Cyrus the Great. He shoulda fuckin' known what would happen when he went about taking over all of the known world! The bastard!

I've written and deleted three responses to this. I am not convinced, but my brain is too tired to explain it. I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be.

It is not simple, but there are clear and constant conventions in the Just War tradition. Under the principles of jus in bello, there are two relevant considerations. First, under the well-established principle of proportionality, the unintentional killing of non-combatants approaches the seriousness of the intentional killing of non-combatants, if the killing was caused principally by negligence or indifference. And I think it's pretty clear that negligence or indifference are the BEST-CASE explanations for Iran's actions.

Second, in the less well-established but nonetheless important consideration of the principle of responsibility in the jus in bello tradition, it is, in fact, NECESSARY to preserve any semblance of the norms of justice for the responsibility for killing (of anyone, combatant or non-combatant, just or unjust) be assigned to the agent who committed the act. In the absence of this assignation of responsibility, the entire notion of morality in war breaks down.

Even if we assume that Iran is justified in its response under the jus ad bellum tradition, which is to say that it was justified in retaliating against the Americans, it CANNOT be absolved of the responsibility for its conduct IN the execution of that retaliation.

[Geezer]

^^^^^^
Never been in a foxhole.

[Mjl]

No I'm not. I've never said anything of the sort.

I just think it's morally reprehensible to blame anyone other than the Mullahs for the downing of the airliner.

You're making a "root causes" argument, which, in moral terms, flatly denies agency and releases those responsible for the totality of blame.

If you take your argument to the logical conclusion, I would guess that would mean that blame falls squarely on the shoulders of Cyrus the Great. He shoulda fuckin' known what would happen when he went about taking over all of the known world! The bastard!

I've written and deleted three responses to this. I am not convinced, but my brain is too tired to explain it. I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be.

It is not simple, but there are clear and constant conventions in the Just War tradition. Under the principles of jus in bello, there are two relevant considerations. First, under the well-established principle of proportionality, the unintentional killing of non-combatants approaches the seriousness of the intentional killing of non-combatants, if the killing was caused principally by negligence or indifference. And I think it's pretty clear that negligence or indifference are the BEST-CASE explanations for Iran's actions.

Second, in the less well-established but nonetheless important consideration of the principle of responsibility in the jus in bello tradition, it is, in fact, NECESSARY to preserve any semblance of the norms of justice for the responsibility for killing (of anyone, combatant or non-combatant, just or unjust) be assigned to the agent who committed the act. In the absence of this assignation of responsibility, the entire notion of morality in war breaks down.

Even if we assume that Iran is justified in its response under the jus ad bellum tradition, which is to say that it was justified in retaliating against the Americans, it CANNOT be absolved of the responsibility for its conduct IN the execution of that retaliation.

I appreciate the patient, non-snarky/cryptic response. Never heard of jus in bello.

I'm not absolving Iran at all. They are to blame without a doubt for that plane.

But there are a lot of awful people that deserve the same fate as Suleimani, and there's a reason we don't kill them all. He deserved this for the things he did prior to the drama of the last few weeks. This kind of action involves risk though, regardless of who is responsible and to blame for those consequences.

I don't know. I imagine how I'd feel if my daughters were on that plane, and though I'd be furious with Iran, a part of me would also be furious with the US for the escalation, knowing that if they didn't assassinate Suleimani that my daughters would still be alive, regardless of which side is morally wrong. But the other part of me hates the idea of deciding right and wrong based on emotions.

[Deleted User 89]

I've written and deleted three responses to this. I am not convinced, but my brain is too tired to explain it. I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be.

It is not simple, but there are clear and constant conventions in the Just War tradition. Under the principles of jus in bello, there are two relevant considerations. First, under the well-established principle of proportionality, the unintentional killing of non-combatants approaches the seriousness of the intentional killing of non-combatants, if the killing was caused principally by negligence or indifference. And I think it's pretty clear that negligence or indifference are the BEST-CASE explanations for Iran's actions.

Second, in the less well-established but nonetheless important consideration of the principle of responsibility in the jus in bello tradition, it is, in fact, NECESSARY to preserve any semblance of the norms of justice for the responsibility for killing (of anyone, combatant or non-combatant, just or unjust) be assigned to the agent who committed the act. In the absence of this assignation of responsibility, the entire notion of morality in war breaks down.

Even if we assume that Iran is justified in its response under the jus ad bellum tradition, which is to say that it was justified in retaliating against the Americans, it CANNOT be absolved of the responsibility for its conduct IN the execution of that retaliation.

I appreciate the patient, non-snarky/cryptic response. Never heard of jus in bello.

I'm not absolving Iran at all. They are to blame without a doubt for that plane.

But there are a lot of awful people that deserve the same fate as Suleimani, and there's a reason we don't kill them all. He deserved this for the things he did prior to the drama of the last few weeks. This kind of action involves risk though, regardless of who is responsible and to blame for those consequences.

I don't know. I imagine how I'd feel if my daughters were on that plane, and though I'd be furious with Iran, a part of me would also be furious with the US for the escalation, knowing that if they didn't assassinate Suleimani that my daughters would still be alive, regardless of which side is morally wrong. But the other part of me hates the idea of deciding right and wrong based on emotions.

^^^^^^^

[Deleted User 295]

What about the sons and daughters lives who were saved by eliminating a dangerous threat who hates the United States and has been the brains of operations that facilitated the deaths of countless Americans? Those lives already lost and hypothetical (likely) future deaths matter also.

The fact that the Iranians (and other enemies) will respond to our actions doesn't mean we can never take action.

Iran is fully capable of not shooting down commercial airplanes. This isn't on the United States at all.

[Geezer]

You think he wasn't acting under orders?
He'll be replaced and back to business.

[TDub]

So we should never do anything. Makes sense.

[HouseDivided]

So we should not exist. Makes sense.

FYP

[Deleted User 295]

You think he wasn't acting under orders?
He'll be replaced and back to business.

We made a statement. The replacement will think twice about the consequences of their actions....and based on their non response of a response, missing on purpose, they clearly backed down a little bit.

It's almost like you're scared of Iran and think we should be submissive to them? I doubt that's truly how you feel, but that's how some of your statements feel.

[Mjl]

I also see a strong argument that even considering the plane, the strike was worth it.

[seahawk]

All this "just war" stuff and the rationalizations of Trump's toddler level impetuousness begin to sound a lot like the runup to the Iraq Debacle, when I seem to remember that we were traitors if we didn't agree with every single lie that that George W, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld were pushing.

Sort of like Nikki Haley is intimating.

Still, it is fascinating to watch how effortlessly and enthusiastically so many Republicans (save for people like Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and Carlson) are eager to embrace the zeitgeist, and have essentially returned to their 2003-era talking points.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/republica ... s?ref=wrap

[DCHawk1]

You think he wasn't acting under orders?
He'll be replaced and back to business.

Oops.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... plane.html

[Deleted User 295]

Wonder why the Iranian people aren't blaming the United States like the American Democrats?

[HouseDivided]

Wonder why the Iranian people aren't blaming the United States like the American Democrats?

Because their culture isn’t blinded and polluted by radical feminism?

[Deleted User 295]

Wonder why the Iranian people aren't blaming the United States like the American Democrats?

Because their culture isn’t blinded and polluted by radical feminism?

I don't think feminism has anything to do with it. Just the never ending hissy fit by the left, causing many to actually wish for bad things to happen to our country and to be against EVERYTHING trump. Trump could cure cancer tomorrow and they'd somehow find a way to complain about it.

[DCHawk1]

It's weird. I don't think Republicans want a war anywhere nearly as much as this board's usual suspects do. It's one thing to want a war to end a problem or even to boost one's reelection chances.

It's something else, something really fucking weird, to want a war so you can wiN tHE inTERnEts!

[Deleted User 295]

It's weird. I don't think Republicans want a war anywhere nearly as much as this board's usual suspects do. It's one thing to want a war to end a problem or even to boost one's reelection chances.

It's something else, something really fucking weird, to want a war so you can wiN tHE inTERnEts!

This. It's kind of scary.

[HouseDivided]

Wonder why the Iranian people aren't blaming the United States like the American Democrats?

Because their culture isn’t blinded and polluted by radical feminism?

I don't think feminism has anything to do with it.

Feminism is why everything that goes wrong is Trump’s fault and everything that goes right is in spite of him.

[Deleted User 295]

Because their culture isn’t blinded and polluted by radical feminism?

I don't think feminism has anything to do with it.

Feminism is why everything that goes wrong is Trump’s fault and everything that goes right is in spite of him.

You've lost me on that.

Feminism in general isn't bad. There are portions, vocal minority I'd imagine, that turn Feminism into this weird man hating victim mentality mess that I can't fuck with...but in general I'm all for improving the treatment of women and changing some of the problematic history we have with the treatment of women in our country.