Would you support, the same for your leader...if found to be guilty, same as Bin Laden and others...

Here is the epiphany...

Seems like drones are the new wave of political assassination and navy seals team 6 and other ways, still apply, covert or overt, still apply as a rule of thumb with no judge, no jury, no trial, other than those presenting the punishment for the accused, much like the new laws in the US that strips citizens of the rights to a trial or due process....and presumable exist in the UK and an lot of other places now in the world either pre 9-11 or post 9-11.

Now, if another country found your leaders or corporations guilty of any acts that in their country it is a criminal offense that the punishment could range from life in prison to the death penalty...and the criminals were in a foreign country and the only way or one way to serve the person(s) could be done with a drone bombing, as we have been seeing performed by the US more frequently, with remote control drone Aeriel planes now be publicized...

First off need to make sure everyone believes this is and has been the situation, as some may be in denial still for whatever reason..

Second, presuming we all agree, then let's say what is good for the goose is good for the gander...
Let say citizens, past politicians, bankers, and everyone is a legal target, no borders or restrictions...
Fair battlefield, as that seems to be what the motives and justifications suggests, with those that have been targeted, as enemy combatant, or some other threat, with no need to mention the names, as 4 come to mind right of the bat, and have not really paid attention, as not counting all the bombings and murders committed by said acts of violence, yet by those who in my opinion are and could be considered enemy combatant, in other countries, for war crimes, that entails a breadth and plethora of charges, that not only are the soldiers accountable, their citizens who paid for it by taxes or other ways and means, are as well guilty of supporting a terrorist organization, their government.


So let us say, that some Queens and Kings, are not shelter by their thrones and some of the Agencies in the UK are implicated as being involved with any acts that could be punishable by death

Same in the US, presidents and politicians,
Same in Israel and same in other countries,
presumably our country, i.e., your country.

Charged with list of crimes and evidence that is overwhelmingly convincing... conniving criminals with more evidence against them, then Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Omar Gaddafi , Al-Awlaki, Pablo Escobar combined, or the same amount, that is required to send in a drone to take care of the situation, by assassination

No matter what the charges are, true or false, would you support it, if your leader was the one, who was the target or if you lived in another country and it was another countries leader or operative or citizens or , vice verse, in general asking, what comes around goes around and karma laws applicable and just wondering if it is acceptable, for another country who may have grievance to target leaders, citizens, for crimes, with drones is allowed and condoned by all and no restrictions apply.

reply to post by earthinhabitant

Originally posted by earthinhabitant

No matter what the charges are, true or false, would you support it,

There are far too many variables that need to be considered, in order to honestly and accurately answer the question, which have been excluded from your broad generalization.

reply to post by BrokenCircles


left vague and somewhat ambiguous intentionally so comments would be broad and in general, or pin point precision on certain elements if one chooses, so let your mind run wild with possible scenarios in the comments are more than welcome, as is critique of the Opening thread, as did not want to confuse anyone or make it tricky or full of metaphors and rhetorical gibberish...although it may have turned out that way, so what can I say...



variables, highlight the ones for rational and more important, like "the family feud show", 100 people surveyed and the answer is......?

I'll be pondering the philosophical aspects of this one all day. Thank you.

As far as "good for the goose..."- yes. To me, the same ethical standards apply to all. This is one of the things I find most appalling about the US (and some of its allies) using drones and assassinations against others while at the same time acting morally indignant at the mere suggestion that others might do the same. There are many genuine war criminals and terrorists being sheltered by this double standard.

The question as to whether any country has the moral right to make attacks by stealth against real or perceived aggressors is a real philosophical dilemma. Meddling and undermining another sovereign nation's security is an act of war; retaliation is also an act of war, and arguably an act of self defense. We seem to be living in an age when wars are no longer officially declared, but the destruction remains the same, and hypocrisy is not convincing.

I think all the trouble is caused by a relatively small number of psychopaths. Considering the huge toll their behavior takes on innocent lives and the environment- take 'em out I say. I don't much care who does it.

reply to post by earthinhabitant

Originally posted by earthinhabitant

left vague and somewhat ambiguous intentionally so comments would be broad and in general,

ok then.......

Originally posted by earthinhabitant

No matter what the charges are, true or false, would you support it, if your leader was the one, who was the target or if you lived in another country and it was another countries leader or operative or citizens or......

Probably not. I don't know. Maybe. Doubtful though. Considering that there is no 'Who, What, Why, When, Where, or How', my official verdict will have to be→ "[color=B5FFB0]Hmm. I Dunno."

If the evidence was available and reasonable, and various courts around the world determined one of the leaders in the US to be guilty of some crime, I would not support them.

I don't trust most anyone who is already in office. It's easy to barely know anything about politics to know that very little of it is done for the common good. It's all about getting back into office and having power. I would not support someone who is very clearly guilty of a heinous crime.

Originally posted by seaside sky
I'll be pondering the philosophical aspects of this one all day. Thank you.

As far as "good for the goose..."- yes. To me, the same ethical standards apply to all. This is one of the things I find most appalling about the US (and some of its allies) using drones and assassinations against others while at the same time acting morally indignant at the mere suggestion that others might do the same. There are many genuine war criminals and terrorists being sheltered by this double standard.

The question as to whether any country has the moral right to make attacks by stealth against real or perceived aggressors is a real philosophical dilemma. Meddling and undermining another sovereign nation's security is an act of war; retaliation is also an act of war, and arguably an act of self defense. We seem to be living in an age when wars are no longer officially declared, but the destruction remains the same, and hypocrisy is not convincing.

I think all the trouble is caused by a relatively small number of psychopaths. Considering the huge toll their behavior takes on innocent lives and the environment- take 'em out I say. I don't much care who does it.

ouch, you make me feel bad now, as you put it so much more eloquently and well spoken, thank very much, as I have too been pondering this for some time and today was the day, that felt like getting it off my heart and mind with everyone else to ponder and see more of what are perceptions and values, ethics and all really mean and say...

For all the christains, Matthew or Luke and Jesus spoke of this quiet often and not seeing any of the compassion, and Judgement is really up to the people here, from my understanding of God and laws of nature and universe, as compassion and love, to be justified to remove someone who has been judged and found guilty, by another country, and with a punishment of death, that could save 1000's of lives in the future, if they are left to go on a killing spree...etc,

Oh sorry, just chewing on it some more and trying how not to justify such an act, is hard to really think of circumstances or situation that feasible and just, all things considered, so if anyone cares to play the devils advocate. by all means, please do...

reply to post by BrokenCircles


oh, here let' say, it becomes apparent and new or previous evidence suggest, that their own government was behind the attacks with operatives from other nations working in conjunction, and so we have The president at the time, GW Bush, jr and Cheney and say a few others, like Rumsfield and say the AirForce is shown to be negligent and certain commanders who gave stand down orders, down the chain,. not as much to blame, as dupe and just followed orders and directives of their leaders...so would be the higher ups who let's say leaked emails or some other daming evidence arises, that beyond shadow of a doubt, Bush, Blair, her Majesty and Israel's administration higher ups all show to have conspired, no if and's or questions about it, the only question would be, is how do we deal with them...would drone attacks be ok or would it be more diplomatic, since was self attack, so the implications would entail a just government that was above the President to resolve and make the call, Supreme Court, Legislative branch be hopeless it seems, so not sure who would make the call for the US, in this scenario, as would hope a formal trial would be in order, before drone attack option, however let's say Iraq or Afghanistan find out that they been duped and suffered as a result and they saw fit to target them for their aggressions and crimes in their nation by drone attacks, as in this theoretical scenario, they can show murder and more crimes, that are deserving of the death penalty, no judge or jury needed, just customs, so drone fleet is launched on the targets and takes out Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield, Blair, the Queen and Netanyahu and a few others who were found guilty of crimes against their country and evidence is irrefutable, 100% accurate, no doubt about it, only ones who denied it was the accused and those who worked for them or still do.

reply to post by Varemia


thanks, I feel the same way, as I would even support an internal drone attack, say the AirForce or department of defense finds out they were lied too and lead a stray and that it was Bush and shadow agencies and government officials who orchestrated, beyond a shadow of a doubt, would hope they would be there for the people and not for the obey the masterminds..who sign their checks...as come one, maybe it is just easier to buy the official story rather then deal with the reality of the situation, is like the pope covering up pedophilia priest and protecting, only worse, as guess it he pope done it before too, so it is all condoned by those in the loop...