Firstly, what crimes are we talking about? Non-lethal could mean any number of things. Drug smuggling, treason for all I know (but I know not what authorizes the death penalty).
Secondly, if what you say is true (because I've never heard of this from Australia), I assume these people were citizens of the United Arab Emirates, and thus subject to their own constitution and laws. If they did these things KNOWING the risk, they should accept the consequences the wrought upon themselves. Two Australians are supposed to be executed next month in Bali because they attempted to smuggle drugs into/out of the country, and despite Australia's demands Indonesia doesn't seem to want to give them up and let them be punished by Australian law. Whether we like it or not this IS lawful.
Thirdly, the reporters were international citizens, so of course ISIS killed them - to spark a wider, more shocking response to what they do. By killing foreigners the home nation and its allies are repulsed and the first response is public outcry, which is sort of what terrorism is going for, because any publicity is good publicity. And now they are known worldwide, they have a larger recruitment pool too.
Finally, the journalists are there to do their job: to report what happens. They are not supposed to possess any kind of strategic value nor any military knowledge - they are only supposed to tell the truth about things as they happen. They are, in a way, modern scribes, writing history. This is why to attack and/or kill reporters is such an awful act, as it can also be seen as a way of hiding the truth from the rest of the world.
Understand I am not defending the US's past actions, but just because one country is allied to a more powerful country does not mean things are overlooked because of said alliance.
(I assume this is in relation to ISIS)
Firstly, what crimes are we talking about? Non-lethal could mean any number of things. Drug smuggling, treason for all I know (but I know not what authorizes the death penalty).
Secondly, if what you say is true (because I've never heard of this from Australia), I assume these people were citizens of the United Arab Emirates, and thus subject to their own constitution and laws. If they did these things KNOWING the risk, they should accept the consequences the wrought upon themselves. Two Australians are supposed to be executed next month in Bali because they attempted to smuggle drugs into/out of the country, and despite Australia's demands Indonesia doesn't seem to want to give them up and let them be punished by Australian law. Whether we like it or not this IS lawful.
Thirdly, the reporters were international citizens, so of course ISIS killed them - to spark a wider, more shocking response to what they do. By killing foreigners the home nation and its allies are repulsed and the first response is public outcry, which is sort of what terrorism is going for, because any publicity is good publicity. And now they are known worldwide, they have a larger recruitment pool too.
Finally, the journalists are there to do their job: to report what happens. They are not supposed to possess any kind of strategic value nor any military knowledge - they are only supposed to tell the truth about things as they happen. They are, in a way, modern scribes, writing history. This is why to attack and/or kill reporters is such an awful act, as it can also be seen as a way of hiding the truth from the rest of the world.
Understand I am not defending the US's past actions, but just because one country is allied to a more powerful country does not mean things are overlooked because of said alliance.
And this isn't humour - you're making a political statement, not parodying or making fun of anything. These kinds of posts do not belong here.
ehh its a SATIRE
It's awfully close to the line.
well both seem pretty bad