the defenders safety is not less important than the aggressors. but any response needs to be proportional, if you can get away by shoving the assailant away or tripping him over that is what you should do, you should not resort to deadly force at the blink of an eye.
So what makes someone an aggressor? If you're overly intrusive and I forcefully shove you away does that make me the aggressor?
Things are rarely clear-cut and that is why you need to have a proportional response.
Actually they can because if the employer is not a customer they have no legal right to access FB's servers and under the computer Fraud and Abuse act(as long as the information crosses a state/national border at some point) that is a felony. So if they do access FB's servers they are committing a crime and FB can then proceed to sue them.
FB's Terms of Service explicitly forbids the user to share their password with anyone and said Terms of Service is easily accessible on their front page and therefore the employer does not have a reasonable claim that they where unaware their actions was not accepted.
Law enforcement should not have easy access to a persons medical journal and thus should not know that the person is considered a suicide risk.
Thus the crimes you point out should be the same as any other crime and thus require a warrant.
Even if you are the owner of the phone it is not your privacy that is being invaded so no your opinion should not matter at all.
What you should be able to do is go to a court and have an expert testify in the presence of a judge whether your daughter at that very moment is in control of her faculties and able to make rational decisions. If that expert is of the opinion such is the case then your daughter could request that the court approve that a person she names be able to request cellphone tracking from the police.
If your daughter is still a minor or for other reasons have an appointed legal guardian then that guardian can make that request of the court.
So you/your daughter should be able to take reasonable precautions but if something happens you have not taken such precautions then you should have the same recourse as everybody else with all the delays and red tape that entails.
The reason that your status as owner of the phone should not matter is that there is a multitude of different situations where someone might stand as the owner of a phone used by another person. For example if you hold the contract on your wife's cellphone and you suspect that she is cheating on you should you be able to request that she be tracked? I think not.
Not directly no but in reality it does, the ECJ can rule that an existing law in any Member State is incompatible with the treaties of the European Union or is in breach the European Union Law.
And according to article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union(of which all member states are signatories) if the court finds that a member state has not fulfilled an obligation the member state concerned must terminate the breach without delay. and if after new proceedings are initiated(by the European Commission) the court finds that the member state has not complied with its ruling the court may impose a fixed or a periodic financial penalty upon the member state which will be enforced by the European Commission.
The ECJ also has the power to annul regulations, directives or decisions by national institutions if they are in breach of European Union treaties or laws.
WELL the US does have jurisdiction over MU because they house assets such as servers in the US and depending on what position he holds within the company and how it is incorporated he might very well be criminally responsible for the acts of MU depending on if he knew and sanctioned the acts MU is accused of.
So yes if MU broke a law they are bound to obey then he might very well have done so as well.
Well the US can claim jurisdiction wherever they want, does not mean it's true or enforceable.
Wasn't it some U.S. Customs and Border Protection director that claimed all that was needed to be under US jurisdiction was to have a.com address?
The fact of the matter is that whatever nation that is on the other side of the argument has to agree that something is under US jurisdiction.
The essential part of the MU case is that they had servers in the US, all the other claims is just an attempt to flesh it out and to try to gain a precedence in future negotiations of similar kind.
If the sole argument for jurisdiction would have been PayPal or accepting payment in dollars NZ or whoever would probably have given them the finger, or at least I hope so but only time will tell I guess.
"Syria, Iran, Qaddafi or Milosevic how they can or cannot act and to make war upon them when they don't follow the rules" These countries are waging war on their own civilian populations. People protesting their governments should realize that in every country the civilian population greatly outnumbers the military.
Well the fact of the matter is that EU and US did intervene in the conflicts in Libya and Serbia(twice!) In Libya EU and US deployed substantial air and naval assets but did not have to deploy troops on the ground because there already was an armed resistance we could substitute for a ground presence(and they actually did not want EU/US ground military presence because it would have been counterproductive in that it would have strengthened Qaddafi's claim that the rebellion was instigated by the west) But in Serbia both the US and other Nato members deployed a substantial number of troops on the ground.
And well even if the population greatly outnumbers the military that is largely irrelevant if the military is the only one to possess weapons and are willing to use them
The Arabs learned this lesson in 47, 67, and 73 and I doubt they would enjoy another lesson meted out by Israel. The militaries in the mid-east countries are weak and do not have the slightest idea of how to plan and execute the strategic and tactical maneuvers needed to overcome Israel or any other country.
Well Israel definitely did not win the latest Lebanon war(who btw were using Iranian military hardware). So I would not be so sure that they can't do it again. They learned something from those failed wars in that they could not win in a direct force against force confrontation but guerrilla warfare has once again proved to be extremely effective because Israel could not pin down the resistance sufficiently to use their technological advantage.
If Iran is stupid enough to actually engage US warships in the gulf there would be no US ground force invasion. All the damage would be inflicted by air based attacks with jets, bombers, Cruise missiles, and limited spec ops missions. In most instances the destruction would happen without Iran even seeing their attackers.It would also be foolish to provoke Israeli military.
Well I would not count Iran out quite yet they do have at least some modern military technology and they currently have the element of surprise and as the Millennium Challenge War Games showed that an inventive even if inferior force can achieve surprising results with limited resources and Iran is substantially more advanced than the enemy simulated in those war games, I would not put it past them to manage to sink or incapacitate a US aircraft carrier in a first strike scenario, add to that that even if their missile technology might be inferior if they have enough of them they can just send more than enough to overwhelm the missile defense of a carrier battle group or Israeli ground based missile defenses. The US cannot expect a bloodless war even if they restrict themselves to air and naval engagements at range.
Unlike Japan and Germany who decided to re-build their countries with help from foreigners instead of killing allied forces every step of the way.
FYI they were given no choice, in both cases the allies made sure to maintain a crushing military superiority for quite some time after the surrender and since their military had been crushed they had no realistic means to resist even had they wished to do so.
Japan btw is an excellent example is what happens when you force someone into a corner, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they felt they had no other alternative because US and UK had refused to export oil to Japan(who had no/very limited oil production of their own) and as such felt the need to acquire means of oil production by means of invasion since trade was no longer an option. As long as there is someone willing to buy oil from Iran they most likely will not resort to warfare but if we leave them with no other option than to submit or to attack they will undoubtedly choose to attack. And as long as we leave them an option they will continue their nuclear program, a classic catch 22.
The helicopter attack in question fired at people who were armed and journalists carrying long camera lenses that can be mistaken as a RPG launcher.
Yes which is exactly why a military unit is only permitted reactive(such as only firing when being directly fired upon or in direct support of allied units taking direct fire or to protect civilians) actions when operating in an area with a heavy civilian presence. Pretty much everything can look like something threatening under the wrong circumstances which is why preemptive actions by military units in heavily populated areas is forbidden! Besides civilians is permitted to carry weapons for self defense in wartime.
The moron who actually brought children into this situation deserves the lions share of responsibility for the injuries the child received.
No not at all, not even a single shred. The sole responsibility lies on the helicopter pilot/gunner and their commanders because the civilians have no real alternative, their whole country is potentially a war zone, they can never know when and where the fighting will erupt, the helicopter was not taking fire and as such was not in any imminent danger.
War Crimes BS goes out the window the minute the first bullet or missile gets launched. War is killing people and blowing shit up. Now herding POW's or any other undesirables into a pen to execute and bury in mass graves is a war crime. Firing on people in a war where the belligerents hide amongst the women and children for protection is far game depending on the circumstances.
Yes, the circumstance is when taking direct fire and then the military unit should minimize the risk to the civilians.(That is also the only circumstance when it would be an acceptable response).
Personally I think it's worse to knowingly endanger or kill civilians when your unit is not being directly fired upon than to execute POW's(as in captured enemy military personnel) because the military personnel was or should have been aware of the risk that when participating in a war there is the chance that you might die in various gruesome ways, they could have elected to not join the military. Civilians cannot similarly opt out or choose to go home.
Systematic executions of "any other undesirables" is an atrocity yes and executing POW's is not even remotely comparable.
War Crimes BS goes out the window the minute the first bullet or missile gets launched.
So if we the democratic states who supposedly hold ourselves to higher standards(compared to the various despots and tyrants all around the world that we like to impose our will upon) and actually wrote the Geneva Convention can ignore it whenever we feel like then who are we to judge others? What gives us the right to tell Syria, Iran, Qaddafi or Milosevic how they can or cannot act and to make war upon them when they don't follow the rules?
What was edited out is irrelevant as long as what was edited out was not the civilians on the ground directly attacking either other civilians, US/Allied ground forces or the helicopter itself the action is still a blatant war crime.
Regardless of the circumstances military forces operating in areas heavily populated by civilians is forbidden to take preemptive action. The only permitted actions are reactive actions and those only under certain conditions such as when friendly forces is directly under fire.
Sadly the United States refuses to acknowledge the International War Crimes Tribunal in Hague and as such nothing will happen because the US commanders(GWB in particular) seems to see themselves as being above international regulations such as the Geneva Convention whenever such regulations become inconvenient.
That indictment is basically still just allegations and not necessary true. Don't make any assumptions based on it until there is atleast some substance to back them.
If it turns out that just a few of those allegations are true then yes MU has completely blown their DMCA safe harbor protection to kingdom come and those behind MU will be in Prison for a long time and we will probably see another new astronomical damage calculation from the **AA's.
It still remains to be seen if this will be his downfall. Even IF MU is found guilty in court that process is going to take years and the guy will have plenty of time to move money(through proxies since he's under arrest) from at least several of the accounts listed in the indictment that is situated in countries that might not cooperate with US authorities fast enough to prevent a transfer someplace safer.
And even if he's found guilty in a US court he can still contest the charges in an NZ court and if successful US authorities will not be able to seize his property in NZ, same goes for every other country where MU has assets, bank accounts etc.
Sure it was a pretty stupid move of to put any sort of physical assets of MU in the US and thereby making MU subject to US jurisdiction.
Had they just put their hardware and assets in a nation with less rigid copyright legislation they would have been fine.
Google gets away with that because they're not an active participant in the crime committed any more than the ISP's involved in transmitting the data are.
Yes YouTube is benefiting from the crime but they are not participating any more than every single ISP is as they by your logic are also directly making money off the crime.
Do you for example honestly think that they USPS should be blamed whenever someone sends something illegal by mail?
This is pretty much the same as someone "borrowing" your daughter, selling her services for a few hours and then giving her back when you finally notice she never came home from school. After all, no real harm was done and nothing was really stolen, was it?
Uh no that is not comparable in any way shape or form. In your example someone is being coerced to do something against their will, that is simply not true in the case of YouTube. For one thing the copyrighted work which is what you are trying equate with someones daughter is neither alive, sentient or even a physical object and as such the two is simply not comparable).
No there is simply no way oil could constitute a bio weapon unless the legal definition of what constitutes a bio weapon was radically changed and such a change would make the US guilty of such an infraction as well because of the whole BP incident(because the extreme and blatant negligence involved pretty much equals actual intent)
The attack on Pearl Harbor was not really a stupid mistake, it was tactically and strategically sound and had it been executed according to Isoroku Yamamoto's directives the result would have been devastating and the US would most likely have been forced to sue for peace. Now that obviously didn't happen, the Japanese commander failed to achieve the goals set out and the Japanese declaration of war was delayed until after the attack so the attack became undeclared which in turn galvanized the US population.
If the US imports no oil from Iran then any US sanctions would be meaningless unless by sanctions the US actually means a blockade which would be a formal act of war comparable to the undeclared attack on Pearl Harbor and a war with Iran would definitely not be in the best interest of the US as it would most likely be costlier, have much higher casualties and a lot more drawn out than either of it's current wars. Sure the US would eventually win in the end if they committed enough resources but at what cost? Can the US economy really afford another war? Could the US international relations really afford another drawn out war? Would the US public accept another drawn out war with yet more soldiers coming home in body bags?
And if Iran actually managed to sink a US aircraft carrier what would that mean for the image of the US Navy in particular and the US armed forces in general?
And yes I didn't say that OPEC sanctions against US would be a likely or probable even only that the US most likely would not react peacefully to such an action. And well even if you enact sanctions against the US there will always be other nations willing to buy the surplus oil, China for example.
What he says pretty much boils down to choosing a battlefield where your enemy can't bring their superiority to bear whether it be numerical or technological.
Sun Tzu also puts a lot focus on using subterfuge rather than direct battle to obtain your goals, so much that he said "supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting"
I disagree, whether attacking a US carrier would be a natural continuation depends not on any "domains of war" but on what impact the sanctions would have on Iran. In this case I'd say that yes attacking a US carrier would be a natural continuation of the conflict because the suggested sanctions would essentially mean economic death and the loss of a lot more lives than say the sinking of an aircraft carrier and its entire crew.
For example I don't think the US response if OPEC put sanctions against the US and forbade all oil exports to the US would be particularly peaceful, the response would instead include several carrier groups, a lot of overt threats and possibly a bunch of explosions.
It would certainly be an act of aggression/war.
If you disagree then please answer this.
What do you think the US reaction would be if for example OPEC decided to deploy sanctions against the United States and forbid all oil exports to the United States? Would the United States take that as an act of aggression?
That is very true there is no logic behind it if that is the goal but the goal with DRM schemes like that is something completely different it's to cripple the second hand market for games.
The companies want you to buy a brand new copy of their game from which they will earn a profit and not a used second hand game from which they earn zilch.
This way they get profit from the early adopters who is willing to shell out a lot to be first to play a game and then they can milk more profit when the retail price goes down and regular people starts buying the game, previously the early adopters could sell their copy when they were through with their game to regain some of the overprice they paid to be first, now that wont work anymore.
I'm not American thank you very much.
But I'll choose to answer that anyway, no I don't think the Vietnam war was worth the cost in life and yes the use of Agent Orange was a blatant war crime.
But to differentiate that a bit, The American presence was requested by the legitimate government of the Republic of South Vietnam and as such the US participation in the war was legitimate.
Mossads assassination of a Norwegian citizen was neither requested nor accepted by the Norwegian government and was as such a direct undeclared act of war(as is any intelligence activity in another nation where the local government has not given their express permission).
Someone steals your credit card, and runs up a $30,000 tab, you pay it... or you go to jail. Period. So think about it this way. If someone effectively bombs your life, by taking your credit card, and shoots you with a debt you cannot pay and the ire of a state that takes debt VERY seriously... how is it not an act of terrorism? That's literally destroying someone's life.
Yes it is but it still does not make the crime worse than if it had happened in a country with reasonable civilized consumer protection laws. The fault for the destruction of that life and hence the terrorism lies with the state.
Yet another proof that Israel is not the well functioning democracy they claim to be.
Oh yes, Israel values lives... Ever heard of the Lillehammer affair, if not you should check it up.
That single instance is enough reason why assassinations can never be an acceptable solution to achieve "justice"
Rightful? Blatant coldblooded murder is is an action that can never rightful regardless of whatever the victim did. They deserve their right to a fair ant impartial trial regardless of their crime.
How do you know some of those "Germans connected with world war 2" wasn't innocent? Their assassination policy is just as despicable as the chinese actions at Tienanmen square or any other despot who sends in the military against unarmed protesters/rebels
What you are missing is that a medium range ballistic missile is VERY different from an anti ship missile. An anti ship missile weighs roughly 500-800kgs while a medium range ballistic missile will typically weigh several tonnes.
Yes those missiles might not reach US forces while they're at port in Bahrain but if this goes down those ships won't be in port, they'll be out in open waters probably protecting the oil shipments, and that would put them well within range of those missiles, if you want to hit stationary targets in port you use MIRVed versions of those MRBMäs mentioned previously.
I would also include the European Union nations in that statement as well, at least Sweden and Germany is well known to have extremely silent AIP submarines and Sweden has on at least 2 occasions "sunk" US carriers during naval war games.
The US depends on it's carriers for projecting air power overseas and I seriously doubt they'd consider going up against someone who has even a remote chance of sinking one, without it's carriers the US navy can't effectively project force in support of an amphibious assault.
Furthermore, the Middle East should be Europe's financial and military responsibilitiy, not ours.
Correct, given the fact that the Middle East are not our neighbors. I think the case for intervening in Mexico is much stronger given the proximity, and the fact that the violence there does affect our shared border.
You choose to make the Middle East your problem by invading Iraq and having such close ties with Israel. You could of course at any time easily choose to not make it your problem but don't expect Europe to do things the same way as you would.
Slashdot Mirror
the defenders safety is not less important than the aggressors. but any response needs to be proportional, if you can get away by shoving the assailant away or tripping him over that is what you should do, you should not resort to deadly force at the blink of an eye.
So what makes someone an aggressor? If you're overly intrusive and I forcefully shove you away does that make me the aggressor?
Things are rarely clear-cut and that is why you need to have a proportional response.
Actually they can because if the employer is not a customer they have no legal right to access FB's servers and under the computer Fraud and Abuse act(as long as the information crosses a state/national border at some point) that is a felony. So if they do access FB's servers they are committing a crime and FB can then proceed to sue them.
FB's Terms of Service explicitly forbids the user to share their password with anyone and said Terms of Service is easily accessible on their front page and therefore the employer does not have a reasonable claim that they where unaware their actions was not accepted.
Law enforcement should not have easy access to a persons medical journal and thus should not know that the person is considered a suicide risk.
Thus the crimes you point out should be the same as any other crime and thus require a warrant.
Even if you are the owner of the phone it is not your privacy that is being invaded so no your opinion should not matter at all.
What you should be able to do is go to a court and have an expert testify in the presence of a judge whether your daughter at that very moment is in control of her faculties and able to make rational decisions. If that expert is of the opinion such is the case then your daughter could request that the court approve that a person she names be able to request cellphone tracking from the police.
If your daughter is still a minor or for other reasons have an appointed legal guardian then that guardian can make that request of the court.
So you/your daughter should be able to take reasonable precautions but if something happens you have not taken such precautions then you should have the same recourse as everybody else with all the delays and red tape that entails.
The reason that your status as owner of the phone should not matter is that there is a multitude of different situations where someone might stand as the owner of a phone used by another person. For example if you hold the contract on your wife's cellphone and you suspect that she is cheating on you should you be able to request that she be tracked? I think not.
Not directly no but in reality it does, the ECJ can rule that an existing law in any Member State is incompatible with the treaties of the European Union or is in breach the European Union Law.
And according to article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union(of which all member states are signatories) if the court finds that a member state has not fulfilled an obligation the member state concerned must terminate the breach without delay. and if after new proceedings are initiated(by the European Commission) the court finds that the member state has not complied with its ruling the court may impose a fixed or a periodic financial penalty upon the member state which will be enforced by the European Commission.
The ECJ also has the power to annul regulations, directives or decisions by national institutions if they are in breach of European Union treaties or laws.
Servers being down for maintenance would also be considered as "part of the game" so no you cannot sue them for denying you access to your goods.
WELL the US does have jurisdiction over MU because they house assets such as servers in the US and depending on what position he holds within the company and how it is incorporated he might very well be criminally responsible for the acts of MU depending on if he knew and sanctioned the acts MU is accused of.
So yes if MU broke a law they are bound to obey then he might very well have done so as well.
Well the US can claim jurisdiction wherever they want, does not mean it's true or enforceable. .com address?
Wasn't it some U.S. Customs and Border Protection director that claimed all that was needed to be under US jurisdiction was to have a
The fact of the matter is that whatever nation that is on the other side of the argument has to agree that something is under US jurisdiction. The essential part of the MU case is that they had servers in the US, all the other claims is just an attempt to flesh it out and to try to gain a precedence in future negotiations of similar kind.
If the sole argument for jurisdiction would have been PayPal or accepting payment in dollars NZ or whoever would probably have given them the finger, or at least I hope so but only time will tell I guess.
"Syria, Iran, Qaddafi or Milosevic how they can or cannot act and to make war upon them when they don't follow the rules" These countries are waging war on their own civilian populations. People protesting their governments should realize that in every country the civilian population greatly outnumbers the military.
Well the fact of the matter is that EU and US did intervene in the conflicts in Libya and Serbia(twice!) In Libya EU and US deployed substantial air and naval assets but did not have to deploy troops on the ground because there already was an armed resistance we could substitute for a ground presence(and they actually did not want EU/US ground military presence because it would have been counterproductive in that it would have strengthened Qaddafi's claim that the rebellion was instigated by the west) But in Serbia both the US and other Nato members deployed a substantial number of troops on the ground.
And well even if the population greatly outnumbers the military that is largely irrelevant if the military is the only one to possess weapons and are willing to use them
The Arabs learned this lesson in 47, 67, and 73 and I doubt they would enjoy another lesson meted out by Israel. The militaries in the mid-east countries are weak and do not have the slightest idea of how to plan and execute the strategic and tactical maneuvers needed to overcome Israel or any other country.
Well Israel definitely did not win the latest Lebanon war(who btw were using Iranian military hardware). So I would not be so sure that they can't do it again. They learned something from those failed wars in that they could not win in a direct force against force confrontation but guerrilla warfare has once again proved to be extremely effective because Israel could not pin down the resistance sufficiently to use their technological advantage.
If Iran is stupid enough to actually engage US warships in the gulf there would be no US ground force invasion. All the damage would be inflicted by air based attacks with jets, bombers, Cruise missiles, and limited spec ops missions. In most instances the destruction would happen without Iran even seeing their attackers.It would also be foolish to provoke Israeli military.
Well I would not count Iran out quite yet they do have at least some modern military technology and they currently have the element of surprise and as the Millennium Challenge War Games showed that an inventive even if inferior force can achieve surprising results with limited resources and Iran is substantially more advanced than the enemy simulated in those war games, I would not put it past them to manage to sink or incapacitate a US aircraft carrier in a first strike scenario, add to that that even if their missile technology might be inferior if they have enough of them they can just send more than enough to overwhelm the missile defense of a carrier battle group or Israeli ground based missile defenses. The US cannot expect a bloodless war even if they restrict themselves to air and naval engagements at range.
Unlike Japan and Germany who decided to re-build their countries with help from foreigners instead of killing allied forces every step of the way.
FYI they were given no choice, in both cases the allies made sure to maintain a crushing military superiority for quite some time after the surrender and since their military had been crushed they had no realistic means to resist even had they wished to do so.
Japan btw is an excellent example is what happens when you force someone into a corner, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they felt they had no other alternative because US and UK had refused to export oil to Japan(who had no/very limited oil production of their own) and as such felt the need to acquire means of oil production by means of invasion since trade was no longer an option. As long as there is someone willing to buy oil from Iran they most likely will not resort to warfare but if we leave them with no other option than to submit or to attack they will undoubtedly choose to attack. And as long as we leave them an option they will continue their nuclear program, a classic catch 22.
The helicopter attack in question fired at people who were armed and journalists carrying long camera lenses that can be mistaken as a RPG launcher.
Yes which is exactly why a military unit is only permitted reactive(such as only firing when being directly fired upon or in direct support of allied units taking direct fire or to protect civilians) actions when operating in an area with a heavy civilian presence. Pretty much everything can look like something threatening under the wrong circumstances which is why preemptive actions by military units in heavily populated areas is forbidden! Besides civilians is permitted to carry weapons for self defense in wartime.
The moron who actually brought children into this situation deserves the lions share of responsibility for the injuries the child received.
No not at all, not even a single shred. The sole responsibility lies on the helicopter pilot/gunner and their commanders because the civilians have no real alternative, their whole country is potentially a war zone, they can never know when and where the fighting will erupt, the helicopter was not taking fire and as such was not in any imminent danger.
War Crimes BS goes out the window the minute the first bullet or missile gets launched. War is killing people and blowing shit up. Now herding POW's or any other undesirables into a pen to execute and bury in mass graves is a war crime. Firing on people in a war where the belligerents hide amongst the women and children for protection is far game depending on the circumstances.
Yes, the circumstance is when taking direct fire and then the military unit should minimize the risk to the civilians.(That is also the only circumstance when it would be an acceptable response).
Personally I think it's worse to knowingly endanger or kill civilians when your unit is not being directly fired upon than to execute POW's(as in captured enemy military personnel) because the military personnel was or should have been aware of the risk that when participating in a war there is the chance that you might die in various gruesome ways, they could have elected to not join the military. Civilians cannot similarly opt out or choose to go home.
Systematic executions of "any other undesirables" is an atrocity yes and executing POW's is not even remotely comparable.
War Crimes BS goes out the window the minute the first bullet or missile gets launched.
So if we the democratic states who supposedly hold ourselves to higher standards(compared to the various despots and tyrants all around the world that we like to impose our will upon) and actually wrote the Geneva Convention can ignore it whenever we feel like then who are we to judge others? What gives us the right to tell Syria, Iran, Qaddafi or Milosevic how they can or cannot act and to make war upon them when they don't follow the rules?
What was edited out is irrelevant as long as what was edited out was not the civilians on the ground directly attacking either other civilians, US/Allied ground forces or the helicopter itself the action is still a blatant war crime.
Regardless of the circumstances military forces operating in areas heavily populated by civilians is forbidden to take preemptive action. The only permitted actions are reactive actions and those only under certain conditions such as when friendly forces is directly under fire.
Sadly the United States refuses to acknowledge the International War Crimes Tribunal in Hague and as such nothing will happen because the US commanders(GWB in particular) seems to see themselves as being above international regulations such as the Geneva Convention whenever such regulations become inconvenient.
That indictment is basically still just allegations and not necessary true. Don't make any assumptions based on it until there is atleast some substance to back them.
If it turns out that just a few of those allegations are true then yes MU has completely blown their DMCA safe harbor protection to kingdom come and those behind MU will be in Prison for a long time and we will probably see another new astronomical damage calculation from the **AA's.
It still remains to be seen if this will be his downfall. Even IF MU is found guilty in court that process is going to take years and the guy will have plenty of time to move money(through proxies since he's under arrest) from at least several of the accounts listed in the indictment that is situated in countries that might not cooperate with US authorities fast enough to prevent a transfer someplace safer.
And even if he's found guilty in a US court he can still contest the charges in an NZ court and if successful US authorities will not be able to seize his property in NZ, same goes for every other country where MU has assets, bank accounts etc.
Sure it was a pretty stupid move of to put any sort of physical assets of MU in the US and thereby making MU subject to US jurisdiction. Had they just put their hardware and assets in a nation with less rigid copyright legislation they would have been fine.
Yes YouTube is benefiting from the crime but they are not participating any more than every single ISP is as they by your logic are also directly making money off the crime.
Do you for example honestly think that they USPS should be blamed whenever someone sends something illegal by mail?
This is pretty much the same as someone "borrowing" your daughter, selling her services for a few hours and then giving her back when you finally notice she never came home from school. After all, no real harm was done and nothing was really stolen, was it?
Uh no that is not comparable in any way shape or form. In your example someone is being coerced to do something against their will, that is simply not true in the case of YouTube. For one thing the copyrighted work which is what you are trying equate with someones daughter is neither alive, sentient or even a physical object and as such the two is simply not comparable).
No there is simply no way oil could constitute a bio weapon unless the legal definition of what constitutes a bio weapon was radically changed and such a change would make the US guilty of such an infraction as well because of the whole BP incident(because the extreme and blatant negligence involved pretty much equals actual intent)
The attack on Pearl Harbor was not really a stupid mistake, it was tactically and strategically sound and had it been executed according to Isoroku Yamamoto's directives the result would have been devastating and the US would most likely have been forced to sue for peace. Now that obviously didn't happen, the Japanese commander failed to achieve the goals set out and the Japanese declaration of war was delayed until after the attack so the attack became undeclared which in turn galvanized the US population.
If the US imports no oil from Iran then any US sanctions would be meaningless unless by sanctions the US actually means a blockade which would be a formal act of war comparable to the undeclared attack on Pearl Harbor and a war with Iran would definitely not be in the best interest of the US as it would most likely be costlier, have much higher casualties and a lot more drawn out than either of it's current wars. Sure the US would eventually win in the end if they committed enough resources but at what cost? Can the US economy really afford another war? Could the US international relations really afford another drawn out war? Would the US public accept another drawn out war with yet more soldiers coming home in body bags?
And if Iran actually managed to sink a US aircraft carrier what would that mean for the image of the US Navy in particular and the US armed forces in general?
And yes I didn't say that OPEC sanctions against US would be a likely or probable even only that the US most likely would not react peacefully to such an action. And well even if you enact sanctions against the US there will always be other nations willing to buy the surplus oil, China for example.
What he says pretty much boils down to choosing a battlefield where your enemy can't bring their superiority to bear whether it be numerical or technological.
Sun Tzu also puts a lot focus on using subterfuge rather than direct battle to obtain your goals, so much that he said "supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting"
I disagree, whether attacking a US carrier would be a natural continuation depends not on any "domains of war" but on what impact the sanctions would have on Iran.
In this case I'd say that yes attacking a US carrier would be a natural continuation of the conflict because the suggested sanctions would essentially mean economic death and the loss of a lot more lives than say the sinking of an aircraft carrier and its entire crew.
For example I don't think the US response if OPEC put sanctions against the US and forbade all oil exports to the US would be particularly peaceful, the response would instead include several carrier groups, a lot of overt threats and possibly a bunch of explosions.
It would certainly be an act of aggression/war.
If you disagree then please answer this.
What do you think the US reaction would be if for example OPEC decided to deploy sanctions against the United States and forbid all oil exports to the United States? Would the United States take that as an act of aggression?
That is very true there is no logic behind it if that is the goal but the goal with DRM schemes like that is something completely different it's to cripple the second hand market for games.
The companies want you to buy a brand new copy of their game from which they will earn a profit and not a used second hand game from which they earn zilch.
This way they get profit from the early adopters who is willing to shell out a lot to be first to play a game and then they can milk more profit when the retail price goes down and regular people starts buying the game, previously the early adopters could sell their copy when they were through with their game to regain some of the overprice they paid to be first, now that wont work anymore.
I'm not American thank you very much.
But I'll choose to answer that anyway, no I don't think the Vietnam war was worth the cost in life and yes the use of Agent Orange was a blatant war crime.
But to differentiate that a bit, The American presence was requested by the legitimate government of the Republic of South Vietnam and as such the US participation in the war was legitimate.
Mossads assassination of a Norwegian citizen was neither requested nor accepted by the Norwegian government and was as such a direct undeclared act of war(as is any intelligence activity in another nation where the local government has not given their express permission).
Someone steals your credit card, and runs up a $30,000 tab, you pay it... or you go to jail. Period. So think about it this way. If someone effectively bombs your life, by taking your credit card, and shoots you with a debt you cannot pay and the ire of a state that takes debt VERY seriously... how is it not an act of terrorism? That's literally destroying someone's life.
Yes it is but it still does not make the crime worse than if it had happened in a country with reasonable civilized consumer protection laws. The fault for the destruction of that life and hence the terrorism lies with the state.
Yet another proof that Israel is not the well functioning democracy they claim to be.
Oh yes, Israel values lives... Ever heard of the Lillehammer affair, if not you should check it up.
That single instance is enough reason why assassinations can never be an acceptable solution to achieve "justice"
Rightful? Blatant coldblooded murder is is an action that can never rightful regardless of whatever the victim did. They deserve their right to a fair ant impartial trial regardless of their crime.
How do you know some of those "Germans connected with world war 2" wasn't innocent? Their assassination policy is just as despicable as the chinese actions at Tienanmen square or any other despot who sends in the military against unarmed protesters/rebels
What you are missing is that a medium range ballistic missile is VERY different from an anti ship missile. An anti ship missile weighs roughly 500-800kgs while a medium range ballistic missile will typically weigh several tonnes.
Yes those missiles might not reach US forces while they're at port in Bahrain but if this goes down those ships won't be in port, they'll be out in open waters probably protecting the oil shipments, and that would put them well within range of those missiles, if you want to hit stationary targets in port you use MIRVed versions of those MRBMäs mentioned previously.
I would also include the European Union nations in that statement as well, at least Sweden and Germany is well known to have extremely silent AIP submarines and Sweden has on at least 2 occasions "sunk" US carriers during naval war games.
The US depends on it's carriers for projecting air power overseas and I seriously doubt they'd consider going up against someone who has even a remote chance of sinking one, without it's carriers the US navy can't effectively project force in support of an amphibious assault.
Correct, given the fact that the Middle East are not our neighbors. I think the case for intervening in Mexico is much stronger given the proximity, and the fact that the violence there does affect our shared border.
You choose to make the Middle East your problem by invading Iraq and having such close ties with Israel. You could of course at any time easily choose to not make it your problem but don't expect Europe to do things the same way as you would.