• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

NY Daily News Columnist Defends Assassination Of Russian Ambassador

 
 
 
Probably the same things are wrong with that guy as with those who claim the white hats in Aleppo are basically terrorists or who cheer on Assad and the Russians in their brutality in Aleppo.
 
barbos said:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-...s-apparently-pro-terrorism-pro-assassination/
What the fuck is wrong with that guy?
Click to expand...

He is incorrect that it was equivalent to one soldier shooting another soldier on a battlefield.

However, he is correct that it wasn't terrorism. It was a targeted assassination of an operative of a foreign power that has provided essential support to keep a murderous, fascist dictator and war criminal in power. This is action that the US, Russia, and all governments condemning the assassination have engaged in (in fact they have assassinated people in order to install murderous dictators into power).

Whether non-military operatives that are aiding enemy forces are legit assassination targets, even when one is fighting for their lives and homeland is another question. But labeling this a terrorist act is just a dishonest way of avoiding that question in order to avoid the fact that most major powers have and still have special forces trained to do just that.
 
Didn't he shoot at the audience also? That would cross the line to terrorism.
 
Jayjay said:
Didn't he shoot at the audience also? That would cross the line to terrorism.
Click to expand...

No he didn't. Instead, he paid homage to Il Conformista.

retrografix-blogspot-com_orig.jpg

161219121615-04-andrey-karlov-shooting-1219-exlarge-169.jpg
karlov-turkey-1.jpg
 
Ok, I misremembered some article that said he "pointed" the gun at the audience. It seems that it was a clean assassination, not terrorism. Not that assassinations are ok either.
 
Group encompassing al-Nusra reportedly claims responsibility for Russian envoy murder

Jaish al-Fatah, an umbrella organization that encompasses the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front, has reportedly claimed responsibility for the murder of Russian Ambassador Andrey Karlov by a Turkish policeman in Ankara on Monday evening.

The terrorist group claimed responsibility via a letter which appeared on the Internet. The letter was written in Arabic and has yet to be confirmed.

In its statement, the group said “one of the heroes of the Jaish al-Fatah, Mert Altıntaş carried out the execution of Russian Ambassador Andrey Karlov in Ankara,” because the world remains silent to what is taking place in Aleppo, no support comes to the Muslims in the Levant [an old term referring to countries of the eastern Mediterranean] and for the victory of the Syrian people.
Click to expand...

These guys are terrorists though.

And isn't Al Nusra the group that keeps ending up with US weapons?

Syria: Another CIA Supplied Group Hands Its Weapons To Al-Qaeda


David Petraeus' bright idea: give terrorists weapons to beat terrorists
The latest brilliant plan to curtail Isis in the Middle East? Give more weapons to current members of al-Qaida. The Daily Beast reported that former CIA director David Petraeus, still somehow entrenched in the DC Beltway power circles despite leaking highly classified secrets, is now advocating arming members of the al-Nusra Front in Syria, an offshoot of al-Qaida and a designated terrorist organization. Could there be a more dangerous and crazy idea?
Click to expand...
 
The guy (who is some kind of columnist) compared Russia to Nazi Germany,
And you people complain about RT propaganda.
 
Jayjay said:
Ok, I misremembered some article that said he "pointed" the gun at the audience. It seems that it was a clean assassination, not terrorism. Not that assassinations are ok either.
Click to expand...

First of all, he did make few shots into audience after shooting the ambassador. Second of all it IS terrorism, in its original form. Third of all, it's not about that, it's about some brain dead columnist who compared this to Nazi Germany and justified it.
 
barbos said:
Jayjay said:
Ok, I misremembered some article that said he "pointed" the gun at the audience. It seems that it was a clean assassination, not terrorism. Not that assassinations are ok either.
Click to expand...

First of all, he did make few shots into audience after shooting the ambassador. Second of all it IS terrorism, in its original form. Third of all, it's not about that, it's about some brain dead columnist who compared this to Nazi Germany and justified it.
Click to expand...
It was no more terrorism than when Eugen Schaumann shot Governor-General Nikolai Bobrikov in 1904. Although the guy should have put a bullet in his own head for better effect instead of making a rambling speech to the camera. As for shots being fired at the audience, either he has really poor aim or they were just warnings.

I think the key ingredient of terrorism is, well, terror. If there is a clear target of a high ranking official and nobody else gets hurt, then there is really nothing the general public has to fear. Not saying that assassinations are better than terrorism, but it is useful to make the distinction.
 
I will say that assassinations are better than terrorism; and they are FAR better than war.

Ideally, political disputes can be solved by talking; but when that becomes impossible, surely it is far better to resolve the dispute by killing just one person, than by indiscriminately attacking people who are only tenuously involved with the dispute itself, or by having armies, navies and/or air forces kill large numbers of people.

I suspect that politicians would be a great deal more thoughtful about the wider consequences of their decisions, if they didn't have much in the way of personal security.

Of course, there is always the problem that assassinations can trigger war. But there are no perfect solutions once violence is on the table. I would like to see international conflicts resolved by single combat between heads of state. It would save the lives of a lot of mostly blameless young men.
 
bilby said:
I will say that assassinations are better than terrorism; and they are FAR better than war.

Ideally, political disputes can be solved by talking; but when that becomes impossible, surely it is far better to resolve the dispute by killing just one person, than by indiscriminately attacking people who are only tenuously involved with the dispute itself, or by having armies, navies and/or air forces kill large numbers of people.

I suspect that politicians would be a great deal more thoughtful about the wider consequences of their decisions, if they didn't have much in the way of personal security.

Of course, there is always the problem that assassinations can trigger war. But there are no perfect solutions once violence is on the table. I would like to see international conflicts resolved by single combat between heads of state. It would save the lives of a lot of mostly blameless young men.
Click to expand...

last line from "The Battle of Epping Forest"

"There's no-one left alive
Must be a draw."
So the Blackcap Barons toss a coin
To settle the score
Click to expand...
 
barbos said:
The guy (who is some kind of columnist) compared Russia to Nazi Germany,
And you people complain about RT propaganda.
Click to expand...

An opinion piece is just that, opinion. Not fact. Not news. Not propaganda. Something to challenge ones views.
 
barbos said:
One more time, American "journalist" equated Russia with Nazi fucking Germany.
Click to expand...

An example demonstrating that assassinations aren't necessarily always immoral and may sometimes be justified does not mean the two senarios are equivalent. And even if he is equating the two cases, so what? What is wrong if someone tries to make a provacative, but incorrect, case?

People like untermenche on this board make the claim that the US is the biggest terrorist organization in the world. I don't mind someone arguing an incorrect perspective.

It sounds like this columnist triggered you.
 
Axulus said:
barbos said:
One more time, American "journalist" equated Russia with Nazi fucking Germany.
Click to expand...

An example demonstrating that assassinations aren't necessarily always immoral and may sometimes be justified does not mean the two senarios are equivalent. And even if he is equating the two cases, so what? What is wrong if someone tries to make a provacative, but incorrect, case?
Click to expand...
First, He IS equating, second I am not sayng it's wrong or right, I am saying it's fucked up.
People like untermenche on this board make the claim that the US is the biggest terrorist organization in the world. I don't mind someone arguing an incorrect perspective.

It sounds like this columnist triggered you.
Click to expand...

untermenche is not a journalist and I don't really know if he believes what he is saying, whereas in case of that columnist he appears to be believing what he is saying. I consider that an illustration of anti-russian hysteria in US. It's one thing when they lie and some random Joe Nobody believes them, and it's quite another when the members of the media believe their own lies. Or take for example the case of White House speaker who refused to condemn calling russians sub-humans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom