Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Maxperson]

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 It is very much a real law unless and until repealed or overturned.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.

The law may not allow what they said it allows. That's the iffy portion. We have the memo from Holder which was used to authorize the attack. If Obama had actually followed procedure, he'd have said he did so in an effort to reduce the condemnation he received for murdering an American citizen with a drone. He wouldn't have shown the court papers, but he'd have said that he went and got authorization from a courts to do what he did. Obama has a pattern of passing the buck whenever he can and he couldn't do that here.

 

[Orlax]

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.

By that reasoning that makes every single kill scored by any soldier, as part of the war on terror, from 2001 till today, including the kill on Osama bin laden, a murder that should be punished by due process.

 

[Ryujin]

By that reasoning that makes every single kill scored by any soldier, as part of the war on terror, from 2001 till today, including the kill on Osama bin laden, a murder that should be punished by due process.

A "war" is not a "police action." Except Korea. But that was actually a war.

 

[Orlax]

A "war" is not a "police action." Except Korea. But that was actually a war.

I was responding to the latter half of his post I'll amend my quote of him to make that more clear.

 

[Maxperson]

By that reasoning that makes every single kill scored by any soldier, as part of the war on terror, from 2001 till today, including the kill on Osama bin laden, a murder that should be punished by due process.

They weren't Americans, and there is no war on terror, because there is no war.

 

[Umbran]

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

As I said before - stuff that would be called smuggling doesn't count as "relations".

Most of the oil that ISIL sells to foreign markets goes through independent traders. In the short term, that works for relatively small volumes, but in the long term that does not support the volume they need to support the local economy, nor is it by any means secure, as there's no treaties protecting it.

 

[Maxperson]

As I said before - stuff that would be called smuggling doesn't count as "relations".

Most of the oil that ISIL sells to foreign markets goes through independent traders. In the short term, that works for relatively small volumes, but in the long term that does not support the volume they need to support the local economy, nor is it by any means secure, as there's no treaties protecting it.

It's not smuggling. For it to smuggling, it would have to be against ISIS law or against the law of the country it goes to if taken directly to that country by ISIS. Not recognizing someone as a state doesn't make it against the law to receive goods from them.

I'll agree with you that it's not very secure and is probably not enough long term, but that still doesn't keep them from being a state/country. It just means that they are going to need more or they will end up like North Korea.

 

[Cor Azer]

It's not smuggling. For it to smuggling, it would have to be against ISIS law or against the law of the country it goes to if taken directly to that country by ISIS. Not recognizing someone as a state doesn't make it against the law to receive goods from them.

I'll agree with you that it's not very secure and is probably not enough long term, but that still doesn't keep them from being a state/country. It just means that they are going to need more or they will end up like North Korea.

Or against the law of any country it passes through en route... Like Syria and Iraq.

 

[Cor Azer]

The law may not allow what they said it allows. That's the iffy portion. We have the memo from Holder which was used to authorize the attack. If Obama had actually followed procedure, he'd have said he did so in an effort to reduce the condemnation he received for murdering an American citizen with a drone. He wouldn't have shown the court papers, but he'd have said that he went and got authorization from a courts to do what he did. Obama has a pattern of passing the buck whenever he can and he couldn't do that here.

Ok, I can see that as a reasonable position, even if I disagree with it (it's a pessimistic view of the law, whereas despite ample evidence, I at least try to view things optimistically).

That said, I can certainly still see a government verifying they're on the right side of their law before proceding down a road, so I don't know if getting the opinion alone is damning enough, but it could be used circumstantially if other evidence comes to light.

 

[Maxperson]

Or against the law of any country it passes through en route... Like Syria and Iraq.

They have water access. They don't need to go through those countries.