Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Umbran]

Their recognition doesn't remove your statehood, though. It just means that there are no overt diplomatic actions going on with them. A state doesn't NEED ratification by others. It will still go on being a solo state without them.

The state that can go it alone, without any relations with or recognition from other nations is a fanciful hypothetical. Much like a winged unicorn, such a beast doesn't actually exist.

 

[Maxperson]

Why is it so terrible? You don't seem to have a problem with him killing other Jihadist. Why does one of them being a U.S. citizen suddenly make it a terrible thing if killing others isn't?

Because they are American. If the government is allowed even once to just murder an American, then there will be other time and other circumstances where they feel that it's okay to do it again. The government should never be allowed to cross that line.

Well, you do have a point. Police shootings don't often involve people who have declared holy war on the U.S.

You're right. Instead they overwhelmingly involve people who are threatening the lives of the officers.

 

[Maxperson]

The state that can go it alone, without any relations with or recognition from other nations is a fanciful hypothetical. Much like a winged unicorn, such a beast doesn't actually exist.

True, but even ISIS has trading partners, so they aren't going without relations with other nations.

 

[Orlax]

Because they are American. If the government is allowed even once to just murder an American, then there will be other time and other circumstances where they feel that it's okay to do it again. The government should never be allowed to cross that line.



You're right. Instead they overwhelmingly involve people who are threatening the lives of the officers.

No they overwhelmingly involve people that the police say were threatening them. They are still American civilians killed by the government.

Any American citizen killed from a drone strike in our enemy's facilities because they've joined the enemy's side is well within the bounds of killing someone threatening your life. May not be an immediate threat but that's really not a requirement there. It's also not as if we are going to send police into that compound and I'm not down with our enemy's recruiting American citizens to their side as a shield against our attacks.

You are also seemingly following the ideology that being an American citizen gives you rights, such as the right to due process. That's not how rights work. Rights are things all humans are afforded, or should be afforded as a basic human right. Unfortunately in war zones due process isn't really a thing you have time for. Pretty much without fail everyone in a warzone is not afforded due process. War zones are messy and every one there is doing terrible stuff to everyone, and its not a place anyone should have to be in.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Because they are American. If the government is allowed even once to just murder an American, then there will be other time and other circumstances where they feel that it's okay to do it again. The government should never be allowed to cross that line.

And yet it happens often with police killing U.S. citizens. That's not even mentioning the death penalty, which is a state sanctioned killing of mostly U.S. citizens.

You're right. Instead they overwhelmingly involve people who are threatening the lives of the officers.

So U.S. citizens that join the Jihad aren't threatening the lives of U.S. citizens or U.S. military personnel?

 

[Cor Azer]

... the intentional murder of a U.S. citizen by Obama.

I noticed you tried to slip this in by skipping a key step in the 'how we got here' discussion.

You said the American killed by a drone didn't get due process, and thus it was 'murder'. However, he did get due process, it was just due process from a combination of crappy laws. Continuing to use the term 'murder' is inflammatory until you can provide proof that the US ignored these crappy laws (which will be hard because part of what makes these laws crappy is the secrecy around how they're used).

The insertion of morality came about through discussion of whether morals inform a body of law or derive from it, which eventually led to the questions of statehood.

 

[Maxperson]

No they overwhelmingly involve people that the police say were threatening them. They are still American civilians killed by the government.

And the evidence overwhelmingly supports what the police say.

Any American citizen killed from a drone strike in our enemy's facilities because they've joined the enemy's side is well within the bounds of killing someone threatening your life. May not be an immediate threat but that's really not a requirement there.

Yes, it absolutely is a requirement. If it wasn't, the cop from Chicago wouldn't be facing murder charges. That guy with the knife walking away from him is a non-immediate threat to him and everyone else.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...o-laquan-mcdonald-charges-20151124-story.html

You are also seemingly following the ideology that being an American citizen gives you rights, such as the right to due process. That's not how rights work. Rights are things all humans are afforded, or should be afforded as a basic human right. Unfortunately in war zones due process isn't really a thing you have time for. Pretty much without fail everyone in a warzone is not afforded due process. War zones are messy and every one there is doing terrible stuff to everyone, and its not a place anyone should have to be in.

Then I'm sure you ca show me the formal act of war declared by Congress against Anwar al-Awlaki, or for that matter terrorists. There is no war going on. They call it a war, but I can call my car a boat, too. There's fighting and killing, but no war. That means there are no war zones.

 

[Maxperson]

And yet it happens often with police killing U.S. citizens. That's not even mentioning the death penalty, which is a state sanctioned killing of mostly U.S. citizens.

It happens, but not often. At least not when you compare the few excessive instances that happen yearly to the number of run-ins and potential instances between police and citizens every year.

So U.S. citizens that join the Jihad aren't threatening the lives of U.S. citizens or U.S. military personnel?

Not directly. If one of them comes to American and tries to kill people, he's fair game like any other American who is trying to kill someone.

 

[Maxperson]

I noticed you tried to slip this in by skipping a key step in the 'how we got here' discussion.

You said the American killed by a drone didn't get due process, and thus it was 'murder'. However, he did get due process, it was just due process from a combination of crappy laws. Continuing to use the term 'murder' is inflammatory until you can provide proof that the US ignored these crappy laws (which will be hard because part of what makes these laws crappy is the secrecy around how they're used).

A law which was very iffy was cited, but no actual process was done. Obama asked a question and an attorney said he thought it was okay. That's it. That's not due process. No court was gone to in order to find out for sure if it was okay.

 

[Cor Azer]

A law which was very iffy was cited, but no actual process was done. Obama asked a question and an attorney said he thought it was okay. That's it. That's not due process. No court was gone to in order to find out for sure if it was okay.

Not sure what you mean by 'iffy'. It is very much a real law unless and until repealed or overturned. A crappy law, to be sure, but real.

And I presume you have evidence that no requests were made of the crappy, secret court we're not allowed to know the happenings of? Or are you making a bald-faced unsupported assertion?

Admittedly, I can show no evidence they did follow their crappy law, but since there appears to be no reason not to follow it since they don't have to face immediate public scrutiny of it and the consequences of not following it could be dire when a non-idealogy-aligned government comes into power, Occam's Razor would suggest they did follow their crappy law.