Seal Team Six appreciation thread

[Meshugger]

Snatched from the 'Codex:

 

I am calling it:

 

- Call of Duty: Seal Team 6

[Monte Carlo]

How about appreciation for those intelligence people who found his hiding spot?

 

The powers that be knows they have been slammed a lot (and maybe deservedly so) since 9/11

 

Yes, a shout-out to them and the enhanced interrogators too.

 

Would the libtards please start their own thread elsewhere, so they can self-loathe a safe distance from me? tx.

[Tale]

Snatched from the 'Codex:

 

I am calling it:

 

- Call of Duty: Seal Team 6

Pssst, post #6.

[Raithe]

Now.. I might be a little off the wall here, but aren't Terrorists classed as "Enemy Combatants" not just civilians who might be breaking the odd law..?

 

Most acts of terrorism class under War Crimes due to the haphazard infliction of civilian casualties...

 

Now if you know the location of a person or persons involved in acts of terrorism, who are known to have killed mass amounts of civil population, and are highly likely to be involved in further acts of terrorism.. is it more moral or ethical to wait until they are actually in the process of killing more people before you can stop them.. or just to stop them before that happens?

 

If it's okay for armed services to be sent into zones to take out opposing armed forces, to use snipers on the battlefield to take out opposing officers and such like.. there's that fine line of sending some form of special forces after terrorist persons/groups.

 

State-Sanctioned Assassination would be in the lines of sending a trained agent after a politician, or a banker...

But sending an armed force after a known terrorist falls under different rules of engagement.

 

Heh, for the slightly random side of it.. one of the most mis-quoted things is from the ten commandments. Apparently it translates not as "thou shalt not kill" but rather "thou shalt not commit murder." A small distinction, but rather vital.

[Zoraptor]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with sending a kill team after ObL and anyone who says there is... hopelessly unrealistic. He knew what he was getting into and he knew what would happen if he ever got caught

 

*I won't link directly to it. US citizens on the forum may be breaking the law if they gambol across and read the direct transcript. I think that'd be rather poor netiquette on my part.

I seriously doubt that. What law would we be breaking? The newspapers have obviously been publishing Wikileaks materials for some time now.

It's if you're a federal employee (or expect to need a security clearance) and not really applicable for general citizens- they are still considered as classified documents by the US government.

[213374U]

Now.. I might be a little off the wall here, but aren't Terrorists classed as "Enemy Combatants" not just civilians who might be breaking the odd law..?

 

Most acts of terrorism class under War Crimes due to the haphazard infliction of civilian casualties...

 

Now if you know the location of a person or persons involved in acts of terrorism, who are known to have killed mass amounts of civil population, and are highly likely to be involved in further acts of terrorism.. is it more moral or ethical to wait until they are actually in the process of killing more people before you can stop them.. or just to stop them before that happens?

Actually, "terrorists" -aka guerrillas, persons affiliated with violent non-state actors, etc- are "unlawful combatants", which simply means they aren't afforded the same privileges as members of standing forces by the Geneva Conventions. This doesn't mean they are without rights.

 

And while snipers may take out officers in the field of battle, if a sniper was sent to the house of an officer to take him out outside of a combat zone during peacetime, it would still be illegal.

[Raithe]

Actually, "terrorists" -aka guerrillas, persons affiliated with violent non-state actors, etc- are "unlawful combatants", which simply means they aren't afforded the same privileges as members of standing forces by the Geneva Conventions. This doesn't mean they are without rights.

 

And while snipers may take out officers in the field of battle, if a sniper was sent to the house of an officer to take him out outside of a combat zone during peacetime, it would still be illegal.

 

The question then becomes, in a running "war on terror" where terrorists can and have struck in every zone possible, can you identify an area that isn't a combat zone? Or that there's some sort of peacetime occurence between terrorist groups and the nations they attack?

[Malcador]

Kind of a moot point though, isn't it ? Big powers do this crap often.

[213374U]

The question then becomes, in a running "war on terror" where terrorists can and have struck in every zone possible, can you identify an area that isn't a combat zone? Or that there's some sort of peacetime occurence between terrorist groups and the nations they attack?

Riiight. So the battlefield is the entire globe and the target can be anyone, as hit lists are only subject to Presidential review. Um, am I the only one seeing someting wrong with that? Edited May 4, 2011 by 213374U

[Raithe]

The question then becomes, in a running "war on terror" where terrorists can and have struck in every zone possible, can you identify an area that isn't a combat zone? Or that there's some sort of peacetime occurence between terrorist groups and the nations they attack?

Riiight. So the battlefield is the entire globe and the target can be anyone, as hit lists are only subject to Presidential review. Um, am I the only one seeing someting wrong with that?

 

Hm, yes, I can see how Osama having claimed to be the mastermind behind the casual killing of several thousand people can be classed as "any common citizen of the world."

 

My point is more that a known terrorist is a valid target for special operations forces. Sure, we want oversight on what makes someone a "known terrorist", but for someone of Osama's standing, was there much doubt that he was one?

[213374U]

Hm, yes, I can see how Osama having claimed to be the mastermind behind the casual killing of several thousand people can be classed as "any common citizen of the world."

Right. Because BL is the first and only target of assassination in this "war".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

 

 

My point is more that a known terrorist is a valid target for special operations forces. Sure, we want oversight on what makes someone a "known terrorist", but for someone of Osama's standing, was there much doubt that he was one?

So then his trial should have been lightning fast, right?

 

Your point is that a known terrorist is a valid target for assassination. But... there are no valid targets for assassination because murder is illegal. See, one of the most often used rationales to justify "targeted killings" is self-defense (!).

[Hurlshort]

Numbersman seems to be missing the point of this thread. Feel free to take it to the other Osama one.

[213374U]

You mean the point isn't to glorify extra-judicial killings? Okay, so, what is it then?

[Hurlshort]

You mean the point isn't to glorify extra-judicial killings? Okay, so, what is it then?

 

[213374U]

So the point is to post random pics? Coulda fooled me. I'll see if I can find some suitably homoerotic Van Damme pics to throw in.

[Krookie]

I think Volo was just replaced

[Hurlshort]

I think maybe there is a language barrier or something. He seems like a reasonable enough fellow, but there are some pretty big gaps in communication going on between the two threads.

[Enoch]

I think maybe there is a language barrier or something. He seems like a reasonable enough fellow, but there are some pretty big gaps in communication going on between the two threads.

Nah, I think Numbers is just determined to argue from the high ground of moral clarity and talk down to all who oppose his position. It's a fair point to question who gets to make the decisions about when/where/how to punish evil actions, as well as who gets to determine what actions are 'evil' enough to deserve retaliation. And it is certainly a source of frustration among those outside the U.S. and other major allied powers that those decisions, which often affect the whole of the civilized world, get to be made without their consultation or review. And that frustration and general inertnetz argumentativeness sometimes leads people to take the logic of that fair point beyond the point of reason, and to the point of throwing personal insults around.

 

(IMO, in the real world where the choices available are often between "bad" and "less bad," U.S. hegemony works out a heck of a lot better than most of the other organizing principles the world has yet tried. Also, rarely, when dealing with instances of proven evil past actions and intent, hegemonic killings can be the least-bad outcome.)

Edited May 4, 2011 by Enoch

[Zoraptor]

Monte hammering a "libtards and hippies KEEP OUT" sign on the treehouse is hardly the most conducive thing for rational reactions either.

 

I do agree with numbersman on most 'targeted killings' as they are often based on flimsy intelligence and have the worst sort of hypocricy in saying that foreign civilians are simply the currency for keeping US civilians safe. ObL though was pretty conclusively self confessed.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Zoraptor

[Nepenthe]

Actually, "terrorists" -aka guerrillas, persons affiliated with violent non-state actors, etc- are "unlawful combatants", which simply means they aren't afforded the same privileges as members of standing forces by the Geneva Conventions. This doesn't mean they are without rights.

Yes, but getting killed by military force is not breaching those rights.

[Hell Kitty]

It amuses that that people who use terms like "enhanced interrogation" and "targeted killing" are the ones most likely to have a problem with political correctness.

 

But then I also enjoy military circle jerk blockbusters. So conflicted.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Demo ****ing **** was a mother****ing member of ****ing Seal Team ****ing Six. Bad ass mother********! They made a ****ing game about this *******! Take a look at this ****! ****ing language warning. I ****ing mean it you *******!

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Demo ****ing **** was a mother****ing member of ****ing Seal Team ****ing Six. Bad ass mother********! They made a ****ing game about this *******! Take a look at this ****! ****ing language warning. I ****ing mean it you *******!

 

You would be easier to understand if you didn't use so many asterisks. Also this.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Demo ****ing **** was a mother****ing member of ****ing Seal Team ****ing Six. Bad ass mother********! They made a ****ing game about this *******! Take a look at this ****! ****ing language warning. I ****ing mean it you *******!

 

You would be easier to understand if you didn't use so many asterisks. Also this.

I wanted to make ****ing sure you ******* realize its a mature ****ing game. And those are ****ing LIES! Best ****ing game ever! Just watch the ****ing

, bringing it ninja style!

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I wanted to make ****ing sure you ******* realize its a mature ****ing game.

 

Because excessive swearing is mature... Right...

 

And those are ****ing LIES! Best ****ing game ever!

 

See, I've actually played the game, a legal copy too, and I've got to disagree with you there. I'm not sure if you're a Poe trolling or not, but if you aren't then I feel sorry for you if you think that it was, quote, the 'best ****ing game ever'.