this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024
125 points (91.9% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36138 readers
1173 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s
ja2
_MoveSwiftly
Rooki
Thekingoflorda
automodbeta
125
How come the US does not put a bounty on Putin like they did Bin Laden? (self.nostupidquestions)
submitted 2 months ago by Don_Dickle to c/nostupidquestions
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 143 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Because A: putting a bounty on the leader of a nuclear power is drastically different from the leader of a.. terrorist rebel organization(I'm not entirely sure what to call al qaeda).

And because B: it would change basically nothing. Putin already can't travel in most places internationally because there's an ICC warrant out on him for war crimes. The bounty isn't going to be relevant in Russia or allied places, and it's not going to be much of a motivator to an entire government.

[–] Lost_My_Mind 37 points 2 months ago (3 children)

the leader of a… terrorist rebel organization(I’m not entirely sure what to call al qaeda).

No no. You got it right.

[–] Makhno 8 points 2 months ago (6 children)

What's the difference between that and a government other than the size/capability of violence?

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 months ago

International recognition and support, mostly.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago

Legitimacy.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

the size/capability of violence

That's, uh, not a small difference. Even if you're saying that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, neither the terrorist nor the freedom fighter are comparable to a large, powerful country.

Edit: One more interesting difference is that because a country has a much greater capability to wage war, it also has much more to lose in war: it can lose that very capability. A small group of irregular fighters does not depend much on infrastructure, but a country has population centers, factories, military bases, the seat of government, etc. which are all vulnerable in a way that a hidden cave or tunnel isn't. We're seeing the effects of this distinction between Iran and its proxies play out right now.

[–] Fondots 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Do they control a territory? Do they claim to be the official government of that territory? Can they back up and defend those claims? Do the civilians living in that territory overall recognize their authority as the government of that territory? Do other nations recognize them as the government of that territory?

It's not a totally black and white issue

If I hypothetically rallied up a group of supporters who share my views and ideals and start carrying out terrorist attacks to force the government to address the issues I'm championing, I don't think many would consider me to be a government. I'm still acknowledging the authority and legitimacy of the government, and am just acting in opposition to it.

If my goal is to seize control of a territory, let's say Pennsylvania, I'm starting to look a bit like a country. But unless I have the support of enough Pennsylvanians, and have the resources and manpower to back up my claim, and can get other nations to recognize it, it's a pretty empty claim.

If I manage to win over the popular support of the citizenry, they may start to regard me as the legitimate ruler of Pennsylvania, however just because they're willing to follow me, doesn't mean that anyone outside of the state is recognizing my claim. Other countries aren't going to engage in diplomacy with me the same way they would with other nations, they're going to continue regarding Pennsylvania as part of the US until I manage to actually have control over the territory. That means in some way removing the existing government from power, and more importantly defending my claim from the US government, who isn't going to just roll over and accept my claim.

So let's say we manage to take control over Pennsylvania, the citizens support me, we've ousted the previous government, and are generally filling all the roles you would expect a government to handle, and at least for now we're somehow managing to hold off the US government and defending our claim to Pennsylvania.

At this point, we're the defacto government of Pennsylvania. However we still lack recognition. The US government is still trying to retake control and has not recognized our independence, nor has any other country, we're seen as rebels, warlords, etc. by the rest of the world. We're essentially on our own, unable to trade with other countries.

From here let's imagine a couple different scenarios

  1. Some countries start to recognize my legitimacy. They offer to support my regime and to open up trade. Popular support from my citizens remains high, and we're managing to hold off the US government. At this point we're in a situation not unlike Taiwan or Palestine. Whether we're a legitimate government is going to depend on who you ask around the world, with answers ranging from that we're a group of rebels trying to secede from the US to having their full support and recognition as the legitimate government of an independent nation.

  2. Our rebellion is a resounding success. The US backs off, recognizes our independence, other countries also recognize our independence, maybe we even join NAFTA. It would be hard to argue that we're not a legitimate government at that point.

  3. I start to lose the support of Pennsylvanians, and they stop recognizing my authority, even though I still manage to maintain control over my territory by force. Some countries, especially those that are not friendly to the US, may still recognize my claim, although in the eyes of most of the world, I'm probably just a terrorist or warlord.

  4. The US government is successful in ousting me, I manage to flee to a country that recognizes me as the legitimate ruler of Pennsylvania or at least is willing to tolerate my presence, and I set up a government-in-exile. I continue to conduct myself as though I am the ruler of Pennsylvania, maybe some Pennsylvanians and other people and countries throughout the world continue to recognize me as such, but without the ability to actually exercise that authority over my territory, it's a pretty empty claim.

[–] Rhynoplaz 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

As a Pennsylvanian, I'd like to hear more about your policies.

[–] Fondots 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm obviously not planning a Pennsylvania secession movement anytime soon, but just in case it ever comes to that

General policy, not necessarily Pennsylvania specific, in no specific order:

Universal healthcare (including all vision, dental, psychiatric, addiction treatment, gender affirming care, etc.) constitutionally enshrined access to abortion and birth control, abolish the death penalty, legalize all drug use with pardons for all non violent drug offences, huge corporate, wealth and inheritance taxes and major tax cuts for anyone making under 100k/year per person, major investment in nuclear and renewable energy, bans on fracking, free college or technical education for all up to a bachelor's degree or equivalent certifications, UBI, low-income housing, major police reform, a ban on homeschooling except when necessary due to medical issues and a ban on private and charter schools except for very specific magnet schools that cater to particular vocations and enormous amounts of oversight and regulations on those schools, absolute separation of church and state (Churches and religions get no more legal recognition or exemptions than any other private social club would be entitled to,) a plan to phase out all reliance on non-renewable energy, down-payment assistance for first time homebuyers, high speed Internet access as a human right, major public health spending (we will get hit with another pandemic eventually, and there's a damn good chance it will be far worse than covid,) a ban on corporate ownership of housing, basically all government services and requirements will be free of charge, legal recognition of poly marriage, election reform with ranked-choice voting, and major gun reform (too much to go into detail here but mainstream republicans and democrats would both hate my gun plans)

And probably a few dozen other major points, but thats what I could spout off from the top of my head

Pennsylvania-specific (disclaimer, I'm based out of the Philly area, so my opinions are the strongest about this region, and I'd need to read up on most of the rest of the state):

High speed rail connecting, at a minimum, Philly, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, Allentown, Scranton, state college, and Erie

Commuter rail along the Schuylkill connecting philly and reading (side note/fun fact: the legal remnants of the old reading railroad company, yes the one from monopoly, that used to connect those two and other cities, is now a chain of movie theaters, with locations mostly in Australia, New Zealand, and California) probably as an extension of the Norristown high speed line which we're also going to reroute to have a stop inside the King of Prussia Mall

Really more rail in general, but that seems like a good starting place and we can continue building out a network from there.

The sixers are staying put, if they want a new stadium they can put one in the existing sports complex. We're also going to cover vine street and reconnect the two halves of Chinatown.

This is very low priority, but I'd like to find a constructive use to refurbish the SS United States instead of turning it into an artificial reef.

We're doing away with the PLCB bullshit, you should be able to buy beer, wine, and liquor at any grocery store.

We're getting rid of any remaining blue laws- not being allowed to hunt on Sundays, dealerships not being able to sell cars, etc.

An absolute ban on confederate imagery except for museums, historical reenactments, etc. I see more confederate flags being flown in parts of PA than I have in a lot of the actual south, what side of the mason-dixon line do these idiots think our state lies on? Especially in this hypothetical scenario since we're not even going to be part of America after this is all over and I don't want any of these shitheads getting the wrong idea that our movement is some sort of "the south shall rise again" thing.

Really we're just generally going to finally drag a lot of Pennsyltucky kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

Major infrastructure spending. I'd say this should be a general not-pennsylvania-specific issue, but holy shit have you seen the state of some of our roads and bridges? You can usually tell by feel the exact moment you cross over the state border.

We're really going to lean into being "Penn's Woods" and preserve our natural resources and wildlife. We have some amazing parks, forests, etc. here and I want to make sure it stays that way. You can barely drive 10 minutes through much of the state without crossing some small river or stream, and I want all of those waterways to be clean and teeming with life. I've never seen our state amphibian- the eastern hellbender, in person in the wild and I'd like to fix that.

Some goofy, not totally serious proposals

Mehmet Oz is not allowed to set foot on Pennsylvanian territory.

Any building in Philly taller than City Hall must have a William Penn statue at the top. We finally managed to break the curse with the Comcast building and we're really going to cover our bases.

We may look into annexing the south jersey shore.

An official Pennsylvanian English dictionary covering the Philly, Pittsburgh, NEPA, and other dialects, covering definitions, spelling, and pronunciations of such words and phrases as : Yinz, youse/youse guys, jawn, Schuylkill, Bala Cynwyd, Conshohocken, heyna, jeet, water ("wooder,") creek ("crick") and many others.

[–] Rhynoplaz 2 points 2 months ago

Well shit. I know it's just a joke, but now I wish it wasn't.

[–] FuglyDuck 2 points 2 months ago

The number of assholes involved.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Same as a religion vs a cult

[–] FuglyDuck 3 points 2 months ago

When in doubt, I usually go with “asshole”.

[–] HappycamperNZ 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They were right. Until they won.

[–] kautau 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Can you explain? I’m unsure what you mean by this

[–] HappycamperNZ 0 points 2 months ago

Terrorists are usually defined as non-state actors who use violence to achieve political goals.

As the ruling party of Afghanistan they are no longer a non-state actor, therefore not terrorists.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Putin already can't travel in most places internationally

He can travel as a proper national leader to all the places he wants to travel (and of course there are places where he does not want to - remember when Trumpeltier traveled to him, not the other way round)

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

He can travel as a proper national leader to all the places he wants to travel

Unless he wants to travel to a place willing to enforce the ICC's arrest warrant. Afaik he's only been to Mongolia and South Africa since the warrant was issued, and both were criticized pretty heavily for not enforcing it.

Realistically, he's not going anywhere that even might arrest him.

Either way, if nobody is going to enforce an arrest warrant they're not going to claim a bounty either.

[–] kautau 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah he basically can go to China and North Korea, which, surprise, are also swimming in trade deals by providing fuel and military supplies

[–] [email protected] 56 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Wouldn't that basically be a declaration of war?

[–] NeoNachtwaechter 37 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes.

[–] kitnaht 16 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Nah, nations don't do "war" any longer. They call it something else so that they don't have to abide by the rules we've all agreed to when going to war. Now they're "operations".

[–] NeoNachtwaechter 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

They call it something else

Ok.

And I call it what it is.

[–] kitnaht 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It's not war unless congress declares it.

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/declarations-of-war.htm

The last war we had was WWII. War includes suspension of constitutional rights, along with a mass of other bullshit. You do NOT want them actually declaring war.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter -5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's not war

LOL

[–] kitnaht 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

No idea why you're so combative. We're largely on the same page here. I'm describing the nuances of the situation, not arguing with you. It's not war in a technical sense. There are reasons why it's not considered war, and nobody really wants it to be defined as a "war" either. But is it war? Well, yeah...kinda. Just not in the general sense of the word, and without all of the baggage that comes along with it being a formal "war".

It's like asking is the sky blue.

Unintelligent people say: Yes.

Intelligent people might say: Yes, well - most of the time. Occasionally it can be oranges, reds, etc depending on the angle of incidence of light, cloud cover, etc. And the blue color is more due to Reyleigh Scattering of the incoming full spectrum light rather than the actual sky itself being blue; technically it's clear.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's like asking is the sky blue. Unintelligent people say: Yes.

OMG are you the one who has increased the chocolate ration to 20 grams?

We're largely on the same page here.

You are promoting "Newspeak". I refuse.

[–] kitnaht 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Nothing I am saying is even close to the term Newspeak. Newspeak is controlled language, simplified grammar, and limited vocabulary designed to limit a persons ability for critical thinking.

But I'm not limiting your ability to think critically, I'm trying to expand it. Yet, not only are you failing to think more critically here, you're actively avoiding it by tossing out accusations and making jokes. Likely because you've already decided that you're "right" (whatever the fuck THAT is in this context, since we agree) and that you're going to fight whatever you're perceiving as an...attack?

In short - yes, it would informally be a declaration of war - because they don't call it that now. I'm just pointing out the second half is all.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The problem is that the belligerents will generally both agree that the conflict isn't a war. This isn't limited to the USA either. The Falkland Islands conflict involved the invasion and counterinvasion of the Falkland Islands between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Officially, that conflict was not a war and neither side officially declared war on the other.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter 2 points 2 months ago

The problem is that the belligerents will generally both agree that the conflict isn't a war.

Maybe they do that, but then it is their own problem.

I am still free to call it what it is. In my country there was & is nobody (except maybe some diplomats/politicians who were talking with these countries at the time) who called the Falkland war anything else than war.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Keep in mind that Bin Laden was responsible for an attack against USA citizens and infrastructure. Putin did a lot of shit to several of Russia's neighbors (Ukraine is just the biggest target), spied on several countries, but never openly attacked USA territory, citizens or soldiers, nor that of any NATO allies.

If the USA did put a bounty on him, it's likely Putin and Russia would receive public support from currently neutral countries, because here goes USA playing world sheriff, pretending to own the entire fucking place and ignoring nations' rights to sovereignty again

[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 months ago (3 children)

The US (at least by executive order which can always be rescinded) has an official policy not to assassinate foreign leaders:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11905

(See also EO 12036 and EO 12333 for confirming the policy)

Placing a bounty on Putin would probably violate that EO...

More importantly, the US is really fucking hoping Putin dies of old age or is voted out domestically because direct confrontations may result in Putin pushing ze button and launching ze nukes.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

ze button and launching ze nukes.

But I'm Le tired.

Have a nap, then FIRE ZE MISSILE!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

AHH MOTHERLAND

[–] Allonzee 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Weird line considering what we're willing to do to nation states to keep their citizens from cooperating socially rather than competing against one another to keep their resource extraction rights open to our capitalists for maximum exploitation.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

Venezuela 2002 is a big old lie, can't believe that people really publish dictatorship propaganda without realizing it undermines their point.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

the US is really fucking hoping Putin dies of old age or is voted out domestically

Or is killed by disgruntled Russians.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 months ago

One of the differences is that Osama bin Laden was not the leader of any recognized state in the world whereas Putin is.

Putting a literal bullseye on another country’s leader would be seen as an act of war.

Also, the US is not currently in (direct) war with Russia while the US was with Osama’s group.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago

Bin Laden didn't have a couple of thousand nukes at his disposal.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Who would replace Putin. If you don't know the answer or you don't like the answer any better what is the point. The short list of people likely to replace Putin are no better. (If you put me on the jobs I'd be shot within hours by one of the people on the short list)

[–] Don_Dickle 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ok in your opinion who do you think would be on his or your list?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

I don't know, but I have no reason to think putin has allowed anyone who might change course to get anywhere close toethe short list.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

Justify War Goal War goal will cost you 47.00 political power and take 265 days War Goal: Topple Government

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

If you somehow killed him he would be replaced by someone who would be in a position of having to prove they were strong enough for the position.