RE: Rethinking the rules of war

RE: Rethinking the rules of war (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

kdsub -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/21/2012 12:16:12 PM)
quote: These conflicts were resolved by finding political solutions that have worked And many more by force of arms...both work. But I agree with you that reasonable people should be able to at least set down and talk in earnest. Now show me some reasonable people. Butch

FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/21/2012 12:56:54 PM)
The Hamas - Purveyors of peace, love, and understanding SINCE THE DAY THEY CRAWLED OUT FROM UNDER THAT ROCK THEY CLAIM TO WORSHIP: http://world.time.com/2012/11/21/tel-aviv-after-the-bus-bomb-eerie-silence-and-revived-traumas/ http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Local-News/2012/Nov-21/195808-palestinians-in-south-lebanon-celebrate-tel-aviv-bus-blast.ashx#axzz2CtLi9ufW http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/tel-aviv-bus-bombing-wounds-27-rider-ceasefire-threatened-article-1.1205736?localLinksEnabled=false http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/middleeast/explosion-reported-on-tel-aviv-bus.html

thompsonx -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/21/2012 1:12:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FMRFGOPGAL The Hamas - Purveyors of peace, love, and understanding SINCE THE DAY THEY CRAWLED OUT FROM UNDER THAT ROCK THEY CLAIM TO WORSHIP: http://world.time.com/2012/11/21/tel-aviv-after-the-bus-bomb-eerie-silence-and-revived-traumas/ http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Local-News/2012/Nov-21/195808-palestinians-in-south-lebanon-celebrate-tel-aviv-bus-blast.ashx#axzz2CtLi9ufW http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/tel-aviv-bus-bombing-wounds-27-rider-ceasefire-threatened-article-1.1205736?localLinksEnabled=false http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/middleeast/explosion-reported-on-tel-aviv-bus.html How exactly does that differ from the american revolution?

FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/21/2012 1:17:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: FMRFGOPGAL The Hamas - Purveyors of peace, love, and understanding SINCE THE DAY THEY CRAWLED OUT FROM UNDER THAT ROCK THEY CLAIM TO WORSHIP: http://world.time.com/2012/11/21/tel-aviv-after-the-bus-bomb-eerie-silence-and-revived-traumas/ http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Local-News/2012/Nov-21/195808-palestinians-in-south-lebanon-celebrate-tel-aviv-bus-blast.ashx#axzz2CtLi9ufW http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/tel-aviv-bus-bombing-wounds-27-rider-ceasefire-threatened-article-1.1205736?localLinksEnabled=false http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/middleeast/explosion-reported-on-tel-aviv-bus.html How exactly does that differ from the american revolution? In short, who cares? You'll beed to find someone else if you want to debate why Alfred E. Newman isn't president as well.

thompsonx -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/21/2012 1:22:49 PM)
Your point seems to be that the "terrorists" are the bad guys. My point was that we used "terrorism" during our revoution. So how do the two differ?

Aswad -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/21/2012 1:53:15 PM)
Nazi Germany complained a great deal about the terrorism of the Norwegian resistance movement, a movement which Roosevelt lauded in his "look to Norway" speech, praise that was restated by Clinton as "free people will always look to Norway". Legally speaking, I think those activities did qualify as terrorism, and some of our national heroes are arguably terrorists by any objective definition that could yield the lists of terrorist organizations that are commonly accepted today. As the saying goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. IWYW, — Aswad.

PunisherNOLA -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/21/2012 2:15:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Your point seems to be that the "terrorists" are the bad guys. My point was that we used "terrorism" during our revoution. So how do the two differ? Yes, as defined by the 4th Geneva Convention in 1949, and the amendment Protocol I in 1977, the US colonists would have been in violation of the Geneva Convention. Instead of the large scale battles with the two armies facing each other in large columns, the Minutemen emplyed some of the tactics used so effectively in Vietnam by the Vietcong. In particular, they didn't wear any distictive uniform as is required by Protocol I, and they didn't engage the British armies head on, but rather hid behind rocks and trees. Many believe the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism, and the colonists used the Boston Massacre as propoganda. The soldiers accused were in fact acquitted and were defended by the 2nd POTUS, John Adams. The difference? The colonists did not want nor seek the destruction of England, and didn't indiscriminately target English civilians.

FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/21/2012 2:26:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Your point seems to be that the "terrorists" are the bad guys. My point was that we used "terrorism" during our revoution. So how do the two differ? Excuse me, but show me in the TOS where it says I need to give a crap what you wish to ask of me and I will comply. You may find that not everyone agrees with your notion that the revolutionary war was predicated by terrorism. Nice that you live in a country that you are free to wax oversimplification about a rather complex period in history. You of course owe that to a conventional army with infantry, captains, and even generals. Send your "thank you" note to General Washington c/o The Continental Army. Oddly. I also have no recollection of any one from the colonies either strapping on a suicide vest and sailing over to blow themselves up around shoppers in London or the colonies lobbing missiles into Liverpool. And for the record, I have not referred to even one act of "terrorism" that has not occurred on ISRAELI SOIL. A rather critical distinction. I actually don't care how the Palestinians engage in Gaza. And I even throw them the bone that we can safely call that "Palestine" I may be wrong, but I've already indulged you more than I cared to in the first place.

thompsonx -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/21/2012 3:55:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PunisherNOLA quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Your point seems to be that the "terrorists" are the bad guys. My point was that we used "terrorism" during our revoution. So how do the two differ? Yes, as defined by the 4th Geneva Convention in 1949, and the amendment Protocol I in 1977, the US colonists would have been in violation of the Geneva Convention. Instead of the large scale battles with the two armies facing each other in large columns, the Minutemen emplyed some of the tactics used so effectively in Vietnam by the Vietcong. In particular, they didn't wear any distictive uniform as is required by Protocol I, and they didn't engage the British armies head on, but rather hid behind rocks and trees. Many believe the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism, and the colonists used the Boston Massacre as propoganda. The soldiers accused were in fact acquitted and were defended by the 2nd POTUS, John Adams. Perhaps you might want to read david mccaullum's biography of john adams to disabuse yourself of your ignorance concerning the trial. quote: The difference? The colonists did not want nor seek the destruction of England, and didn't indiscriminately target English civilians. The colonies were england at the time or had that fact escaped your notice? Perhaps a history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade could do something to disabuse your of your lack of factual knowledge concerning the revolution and perhaps even give you some insight behind the causes of the war of 1812.

thompsonx -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/21/2012 4:12:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FMRFGOPGAL quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Your point seems to be that the "terrorists" are the bad guys. My point was that we used "terrorism" during our revoution. So how do the two differ? Excuse me, but show me in the TOS where it says I need to give a crap what you wish to ask of me and I will comply. You are free to do as you choose. If you feel unable or unqualified to carry on this discussion please feel free to absent yourself from it at will. There is a block button for those who find my questions too difficult to field. quote: You may find that not everyone agrees with your notion that the revolutionary war was predicated by terrorism. I did not say that it was. I pointed out that acts of terrorism were part and parcel of our revolution quote: Nice that you live in a country that you are free to wax oversimplification about a rather complex period in history. I will be glad to get as detailed as you wish to validate any point that I make. quote: You of course owe that to a conventional army with infantry, captains, and even generals. Send your "thank you" note to General Washington c/o The Continental Army. You might want to also incude benidict arnold among those whom thee and me owe a debt of gratitude. quote: Oddly. I also have no recollection of any one from the colonies either strapping on a suicide vest and sailing over to blow themselves up around shoppers in London or the colonies lobbing missiles into Liverpool. Do you feel that those are the only acts of terrorism that are being discussed here? quote: And for the record, I have not referred to even one act of "terrorism" that has not occurred on ISRAELI SOIL. A rather critical distinction. Had you taken time to reference the discussion between mike wallace and ahmadinajhad that I mentioned to you on another thread you might have a better understanding of what is considered "israeli soil". quote: I actually don't care how the Palestinians engage in Gaza. And I even throw them the bone that we can safely call that "Palestine" Does this mean that you are not against terrorism but just where geographically it occures? quote: I may be wrong, but I've already indulged you more than I cared to in the first place. As you pointed out you are under no obligation to validate your moronic post. The block button can be a friend to the ignorant. It prevents them from seeing someone shred their opinions.

PunisherNOLA -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/21/2012 4:36:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: PunisherNOLA quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Your point seems to be that the "terrorists" are the bad guys. My point was that we used "terrorism" during our revoution. So how do the two differ? Yes, as defined by the 4th Geneva Convention in 1949, and the amendment Protocol I in 1977, the US colonists would have been in violation of the Geneva Convention. Instead of the large scale battles with the two armies facing each other in large columns, the Minutemen emplyed some of the tactics used so effectively in Vietnam by the Vietcong. In particular, they didn't wear any distictive uniform as is required by Protocol I, and they didn't engage the British armies head on, but rather hid behind rocks and trees. Many believe the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism, and the colonists used the Boston Massacre as propoganda. The soldiers accused were in fact acquitted and were defended by the 2nd POTUS, John Adams. Perhaps you might want to read david mccaullum's biography of john adams to disabuse yourself of your ignorance concerning the trial. quote: The difference? The colonists did not want nor seek the destruction of England, and didn't indiscriminately target English civilians. The colonies were england at the time or had that fact escaped your notice? Perhaps a history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade could do something to disabuse your of your lack of factual knowledge concerning the revolution and perhaps even give you some insight behind the causes of the war of 1812. Seriously, this is how you respond? Why don't you save that nonsense for someone who will engage you on that level, okay pal? Yes, the colonies were a part of England, and that has absloutely nothing at all to do with the answer to your question. The colonists did not seek the destruction of England, they only wanted independence from her. That is one of the ways it was different than the tactics employed by groups such as Hamas. My mistake on the trial. Only 6 of the 8 were acquitted, the other two were convicted of Manslaughter.

thompsonx -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/21/2012 4:39:59 PM)
quote: 1. As long as Hamas or Hezbollah or any other "liberation" group put out videos and continue to hide their faces they won't be given any credence here. It is a cowardly thing to do and if you believe in the fight you are making you wouldn't care who saw who you were. The "boston tea party", if the history books are correct states that the perpetrators were disguised as native americans so that they could not be identified...how is that different?

YN -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/21/2012 4:46:05 PM)
I like the part where it is perfectly acceptable to use a drone or a bomber to bomb civilians in their homes but terrorism to toss a a grenade or a satchel charge through the window to accomplish the same end. And that marching an army of stormtroopers into another's lands is acceptable, but if the natives pick up even a farm implement, never mind a firearm and use it on these invaders they are terrorists. Or that a military can secretly send a team of disguised commandos around the world to engage in assassinations, lay mines, conduct ambushes and set off explosives, but should a band of third world peons do the same thing, they are terrorists. So one must have a modern army as defined by some chairborne imperialists to defend your home and country? If the Chinese catch a Seal unit or the SAS committing murders inside China, should they execute them as terrorists, or are they obligated to consider them POWs?

mnottertail -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/21/2012 4:50:46 PM)
Interestingly of course I do not believe that HAMAS, as well as several other nations are signatories to the Geneva Conventions, and do not participate in the civilized forms of warfare, that we the enlightend do, we need only solicit our Justice Department for the opinion that 'enhanced interrogation techniques' are not torture, but it is ok even if they are since everybody knows we are going to win, and the cowardly congress has no spine to point out that we should (as befits our constitution and our national interest) make it a matter of law that lese magiste does not overshadow noblisse oblige in our nations common mind.

thompsonx -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/21/2012 4:52:07 PM)
[quot]ORIGINAL: PunisherNOLA quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx [quot]ORIGINAL: PunisherNOLA [quot]ORIGINAL: thompsonx Your point seems to be that the "terrorists" are the bad guys. My point was that we used "terrorism" during our revoution. So how do the two differ? quote: Yes, as defined by the 4th Geneva Convention in 1949, and the amendment Protocol I in 1977, the US colonists would have been in violation of the Geneva Convention. Instead of the large scale battles with the two armies facing each other in large columns, the Minutemen emplyed some of the tactics used so effectively in Vietnam by the Vietcong. In particular, they didn't wear any distictive uniform as is required by Protocol I, and they didn't engage the British armies head on, but rather hid behind rocks and trees. Many believe the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism, and the colonists used the Boston Massacre as propoganda. The soldiers accused were in fact acquitted and were defended by the 2nd POTUS, John Adams. Perhaps you might want to read david mccaullum's biography of john adams to disabuse yourself of your ignorance concerning the trial. quote: The difference? The colonists did not want nor seek the destruction of England, and didn't indiscriminately target English civilians. The colonies were england at the time or had that fact escaped your notice? Perhaps a history book written for someone beyond the fifth grade could do something to disabuse your of your lack of factual knowledge concerning the revolution and perhaps even give you some insight behind the causes of the war of 1812. quote: Seriously, this is how you respond? Why don't you save that nonsense for someone who will engage you on that level, okay pal? I'm not your pal quote: Yes, the colonies were a part of England, and that has absloutely nothing at all to do with the answer to your question. It has everything to do with the question...that you choose not to acknowledge it is your problem and not mine. quote: The colonists did not seek the destruction of England, they only wanted independence from her. That is one of the ways it was different than the tactics employed by groups such as Hamas. The arabs seem to feel that israel is situated on arab land against the will of the arabs. The colonist seemed to feel that england was situated in a part of north america that was against the will of the revolutionaries....the similarities are there for you to judge. quote: My mistake on the trial. Only 6 of the 8 were acquitted, the other two were convicted of Manslaughter. Now for the important question...why?

FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/21/2012 4:58:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Your point seems to be that the "terrorists" are the bad guys. My point was that we used "terrorism" during our revoution. So how do the two differ? Excuse me, but show me in the TOS where it says I need to give a crap what you wish to ask of me and I will comply You are free to do as you choose. If you feel unable or unqualified to carry on this discussion please feel free to absent yourself from it at will. There is a block button for those who find my questions too difficult to field. Oh it couldn't be that I just don't respond to a poster who refuses to stick their own neck out and then needs to resort to insult... as you have above. Save your one liners for someone isn't already on to this tactic of short sheeting a debate. Every try any different methods of debate? Haven't seen it evidenced here on CM.

Rule -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/21/2012 5:01:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YN So one must have a modern army as defined by some chairborne imperialists to defend your home and country? A civilized population will surrender when (faced with) defeat(ed). And a civilized conqueror will incorporate the defeated population in its own population. quote: Sardis was sacked by the Persians. According to Herodotus, Croesus asked Cyrus, “What is it that all these men of yours are so intent upon doing.” Cyrus replied: “They are plundering your city and carrying off your treasures.” Croesus then corrected him: “Not my city or my treasures. Nothing there any longer belongs to me. It is you they are robbing.” Stunned by this amazing new thought, Cyrus immediately commanded his men to stop plundering his new city, if I recall correctly. quote: ORIGINAL: YN If the Chinese catch a Seal unit or the SAS committing murders inside China, should they execute them as terrorists, or are they obligated to consider them POWs? If no war was declared, it seems to me that they should be tried as criminals for their various crimes. The fashionable word "terrorist" in my eyes has no value whatsoever.

thompsonx -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/21/2012 5:05:11 PM)
quote: In every war, both sides believe they are fighting for just causes... Or there would be no war. I don't believe it's naive to think this is a truism, there's always a reason for the war. You and I sitting at home watching it unfold on our favorite 24/7 newscycle may see it differently, but the combatants always think they're fighting for a just cause. All wars are fought so we can fuck their women and steal their dope.

thompsonx -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/21/2012 5:06:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle What do you think? I think that it sucks when cowardly combatants use civilians as hostages to hide behind. So yes: shoot the hostages first and subsequently engage the combatants. Are u.s. war toy factories located near population centers?

thompsonx -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/21/2012 5:12:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YN I like the part where it is perfectly acceptable to use a drone or a bomber to bomb civilians in their homes but terrorism to toss a a grenade or a satchel charge through the window to accomplish the same end. And that marching an army of stormtroopers into another's lands is acceptable, but if the natives pick up even a farm implement, never mind a firearm and use it on these invaders they are terrorists. Or that a military can secretly send a team of disguised commandos around the world to engage in assassinations, lay mines, conduct ambushes and set off explosives, but should a band of third world peons do the same thing, they are terrorists. So one must have a modern army as defined by some chairborne imperialists to defend your home and country? If the Chinese catch a Seal unit or the SAS committing murders inside China, should they execute them as terrorists, or are they obligated to consider them POWs? There is an interesting book "kiss the boys goodby" it deals with pow in viet nam who were captured after we left and the efforts of the u.s. govt to "terminate" them so that they would not be an embarrasment.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875