toldailytopic: Libya's Muammar el-Qaddafi is dead, discuss.

[John Mortimer]

You are right Oz..... the people who murdered Gaddafi are just outplaying the exact same consciousness as he had.

Seriously....... who wants to live in a world like this? I don't.

 

[some other dude]

Let's call it like it is

If you are of a certain age, this picture will instantly resonate emotionally. It proved a cultural turning point for the Vietnam War, largely because most people at the time were ignorant of the circumstances leading up to it.

Murder or execution?

 

[WizardofOz]

From my perspective, Nguyễn Ngọc Loan was a murderer.

Eddie Adams

 

[The Barbarian]

The Viet Cong he shot had just murdered a family. But he was still a prisoner, and killing him that was was murder.

 

[some other dude]

From my perspective, Nguyễn Ngọc Loan was a murderer.

Eddie Adams

And therein lies the conundrum. Your perspective is fat, happy and comfortable, separated by time and distance.

His perspective was on a battlefield faced with a prisoner caught in the act of murdering his friends' families.

From the perspective of the photographer who took the pic:

The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths ... What the photograph didn't say was, 'What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American soldiers?[7]

 

[The Barbarian]

Of course, some prefer the Viet Cong philosophy.

 

[some other dude]

Of course, some prefer the Viet Cong philosophy.

Do you think Eddie Adams preferred the Viet Cong philosophy?

Does barbie prefer the Viet Cong philosophy?

 

[WizardofOz]

And therein lies the conundrum. Your perspective is fat, happy and comfortable, separated by time and distance.

His perspective was on a battlefield faced with a prisoner caught in the act of murdering his friends' families.

From the perspective of the photographer who took the pic:

All I need to know is that the person killed was a prisoner who was detained with his hands tied behind his back.

Is it better that prisoners who are handcuffed are shot in the head or brought to justice? You're rationalizing in an attempt to justify Loan's actions. It won't work now and it didn't work on the American people in 68-69.

If the charges against Lem were true, then convict him and execute him. Don't let generals be judge jury and executioner.

If an American soldier were captured in Afghanistan would you rather he be held prisoner or just shot in the head on the battlefield?

 

[serpentdove]

...[T]he people who murdered Gaddafi are just outplaying the exact same consciousness as he had.

Seriously....... who wants to live in a world like this? I don't.

Solomon thought this.

See:

Eccl 1:2 J. Vernon McGee

 

[some other dude]

All I need to know is that the person killed was a prisoner who was detained with his hands tied behind his back.

He would be a prisoner detained with his hands tied behind his back if he was executed after a trial. :idunno:

Is it better that prisoners who are handcuffed are shot in the head or brought to justice?

He was brought to justice. Just because it's not a justice process with which you are comfortable doesn't make it any less so.

You're rationalizing in an attempt to justify Loan's actions. It won't work now and it didn't work on the American people in 68-69.

It was war, it was a battlefield and it was the middle of a fierce offensive.

If the charges against Lem were true, then convict him and execute him. Don't let generals be judge jury and executioner.

Right, that's the way we roll here in America.

The Viet Cong would laugh at your suggestions, and the South Vietnamese might have also.

BTW - he wasn't a general, he was the Republic of Vietnam's Chief of National Police.

If an American soldier were captured in Afghanistan would you rather he be held prisoner or just shot in the head on the battlefield?

I'd rather he be released unharmed. :idunno:

 

[The Barbarian]

Ironically, the prisoner shared Sot's outlook. The people he killed, in his mind, were "bad people", and so no trial was necessary.

Loan and Sot agree. The difference is, Loan was in the middle of the Tet offensive, with the enemy everywhere, killing not just soldiers, but innocent women and children. Which was Adams' point. We need to consider the circumstances, which are extenuating for Loan.

Sot has no such excuse, of course. Nor did the Viet Cong fighter, who rationally planned the attack.

Sot excuses:

He would be a prisoner detained with his hands tied behind his back if he was executed after a trial.

I think most of us would consider a trial to be required before an execution.

 

[WizardofOz]

He would be a prisoner detained with his hands tied behind his back if he was executed after a trial. :idunno:

He was brought to justice. Just because it's not a justice process with which you are comfortable doesn't make it any less so.

After a trial? That would be the right way to do it, yes.

Why don't US soldiers simply shoot on sight all Afghans they capture fighting against US forces? No need for Gitmo, we should simply shoot them in the head.

It was war, it was a battlefield and it was the middle of a fierce offensive.

There are reasons why prisoners with their hands tied are not being shot in the head on battlefields all around the world.

BTW - he wasn't a general, he was the Republic of Vietnam's Chief of National Police.

Nguyễn Ngọc Loan was a former Brigadier General of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. General Nguyen Ngoc Loan Executing a Viet Cong Prisoner in Saigon is a photograph taken by Eddie Adams on February 1, 1968.

I'd rather he be released unharmed. :idunno:

Then you'd rather hold a double standard.

 

[some other dude]

After a trial? That would be the right way to do it, yes.

No argument here, but I'm saying that from my own safe perspective.

Why don't US soldiers simply shoot on sight all Afghans they capture fighting against US forces? No need for Gitmo, we should simply shoot them in the head.

Our code of military justice doesn't allow for that.

There are reasons why prisoners with their hands tied are not being shot in the head on battlefields all around the world.

No, on battlefields in the third world they're being tortured, raped and having their heads sawed off.

Nguyễn Ngọc Loan was a former Brigadier General of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. General Nguyen Ngoc Loan Executing a Viet Cong Prisoner in Saigon is a photograph taken by Eddie Adams on February 1, 1968.

from wiki:
Lém was captured and brought to Brigadier General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan, then Chief of the Republic of Viet Nam National Police.

Ah, I see. I had thought I'd heard he was a general. He was both.

Then you'd rather hold a double standard.

Which double standard would that be?

 

[some other dude]

I can't believe I'm going to bother responding to such a blatant racist as barbie, but here goes:

Ironically, the prisoner shared Sot's outlook.

What is "my outlook"?

Loan and Sot agree.

We do?

Sot has no such excuse, of course.

No excuse for what?

barbie fumbles:

Sot excuses:

I wrote "He would be a prisoner detained with his hands tied behind his back if he was executed after a trial."

Is that an inaccurate statement?

I think most of us would consider a trial to be required before an execution.

Everybody except Obama, it would seem. :idunno:

And barbie.

Wasn't barbie recently arguing that it was just hunky-dory for Bammy to assassinate US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without any attempt to arrest him and bring him to trial?

Turns out he did. According to barbie, when Obama ordered the killing of a US citizen without any attempt to arrest him or bring him to trial: "He got due process, under the law."



Oh barbie. A racist, dishonest and now a hypocrite. How embarrassing that must be for you.

 

[The Barbarian]

Wasn't barbie recently arguing that it was just hunky-dory for Bammy to assassinate US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without any attempt to arrest him and bring him to trial?

It was also O.K. for the U.S. to assassinate Admiral Yamamoto during WWII for the same reason. He was at war with us. However, if we had captured him and then killed him without trial, that would have been a crime. Likewise when Obama ordered the killing of a man who was actively at war with us, that was legal. What wouldn't have been legal was capturing him and then killing him without trial.

Turns out he did. According to barbie, when Obama ordered the killing of a US citizen without any attempt to arrest him or bring him to trial: "He got due process, under the law."

Yep. For the same reason we killed some American POWs who had turned coat and joined the German forces against us. We didn't try to arrest them, either. If they had been captured, however, the law would required they be put on trial, not summarily executed.

This probably makes no sense to you. And that sums things up neatly.

 

[some other dude]

... when Obama ordered the killing of a man who was actively at war with us...

Really? He was pointing a gun at US soldiers?



I had more the impression that he was eating his cornflakes.



So barbie's cool with executing bad guys without a trial as long as we do it sneakily, so they don't know it's coming. If they know it's coming, that's bad.

The more I learn about how barbie's mind works, the more unpleasant I find it to engage him.

Racist, dishonest, hypocritical and now this. I don't even know what to call it.

Call it barbie, I guess. :idunno:

 

[The Barbarian]

Actually, Yamamoto wasn't aiming a gun at anyone, either. He was riding to a meeting when we got him. So was your guy in Yemen; coming back from a funeral, with his associates.

Some of those Americans who went over to the Germans probably weren't aiming a gun at any of our troops when they died.

How does that justify your enthusiasm for killing prisoners?

I think you probably do understand that it's O.K. and legal to kill those who are at war with us, even if they aren't aiming a gun at us. And I hope somewhere in your mind, you're aware that there's a difference between that and killing a prisoner without trial.

But I'm not sure. When you were Koban, I think you did. But something really bad happened to you between then and now. And I don't know if you even care about the distinction.

 

[some other dude]

barbie can't quite manage to make a post without including some form of dishonesty:

... your enthusiasm for killing prisoners...

Poor barbie. I really don't think you can help yourself. You're such a sad twisted old fellow. It's no wonder that you have the reputation here that you do.


:idea: But at least you managed to make a post without including anything racist! That's got to count for something! :thumb:

 

[The Barbarian]

I see Sot decided to abandon his argument about shooting prisoners. Too late, though. He would have been smart not to get drawn into it. Fact is, there's a huge difference between killing enemies at war with you, and killing bound prisoners without a trial. Whether he realizes this and is just trolling, or whether he doesn't see any distinction between the two is hard to say.

And the bunny trail...
(Koban, er... Sot is disappointed that I didn't buy his story about "Arabs are brown people.")

Many of them are lighter than many Europeans. But Sot thinks I'm "racist" for saying so.

 

[some other dude]

... his argument about shooting prisoners.

cite?

Oh that's right, you were just being dishonest again.

But Sot thinks I'm "racist" for saying so.

No barbie, we all think you're racist for suggesting that there's something wrong with black people as a race.


None of us were surprised to see that you were happy that only arabs were killed in the Libyan uprising. It's exactly what we've come to expect from a racist like you.