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

Politesub53 -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/25/2012 6:01:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Was that the fourth or fifth time we had to retake Fallujah? You seem to forget that the man in charge at My Lai is still in prison. If he had been South Korean ( they fought there) he would have gotten a commendation, if not a promotion. A classic knee jerk response which overlooks anything said in the post replied to. [8\|] Added that your "facts cough cough" are bullshit. the saddest part is your crassness in suggesting that a man ordering civillians to be herded into a ditch and shot would have got a medal if he had been South Korean. To sum up..... WTF.

SilverMark -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/25/2012 7:45:37 AM)
General Sherman once said “This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war.”...Had he not done so, the South may have resisted further and longer than they did. The point being, that war should be horrible, so that we seek ways to end it. Collateral damage and death of civilians bring home the facts that it must end, and brings the parties to the table, if they are civilized enough to do so. Great post tweak...

Moonhead -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/25/2012 8:03:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It is interesting to note some posters (almost always pro-Israeli posters) using the terms "Israeli" and "the Jews" interchangeably. Whether by accident or design, this adds a totally unnecessary racial dimension to the discussion. No surprise then that often the same posters resort to throwing out the old canard of "Anti-Semitic' to smear their opponents. This is a tactic designed to mislead. Israel is home to about half of the world's Jewish population, and the Jewish people have a long and separate history to that of modern Israel, which was created a little over 60 years ago. A given person can be Jewish without being Israeli or having any connection with Israel, or Israeli without being Jewish. The two terms are not interchangeable. Ditto 'Palestinian' and 'Arab'. Actions on the Israeli side are carried out by Israelis, not "Jews" or "the Jews". Actions on the Palestinian side are carried out by Palestinians, not "Arabs" or "the Arabs". Misusing these terms advertises the user's fundamental misunderstanding of the situation in the region. It will help maintaining a civilised tone to these discussions if posters took more care when using these terms and ensured they are used accurately and appropriately. That's something that Israeli has been deliberately cultivating at least since the late '70s. (The really offensive thing about that, of course, is that there are an awful lot of jews who find Israel's conduct in the occupied territories utterly reprehensible.) They've also done a lot to try to make the terms "antisemite" and "antizionist" interchangeable as well.

kdsub -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/25/2012 9:56:03 AM)
quote: Actions on the Israeli side are carried out by Israelis, not "Jews" or "the Jews". Actions on the Palestinian side are carried out by Palestinians, not "Arabs" or "the Arabs". Ask the majority of Palestinians if they differentiate between Israelis and Jews…also ask the majority of Israelis if they differentiate Palestinians from Arabs. Any who would not know the answer to the above questions has a fundamental naive misunderstanding of the situation and region. Butch

Moonhead -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/25/2012 12:36:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: Actions on the Israeli side are carried out by Israelis, not "Jews" or "the Jews". Actions on the Palestinian side are carried out by Palestinians, not "Arabs" or "the Arabs". Ask the majority of Palestinians if they differentiate between Israelis and Jews…also ask the majority of Israelis if they differentiate Palestinians from Arabs. They'll have trouble blowing up jews who don't live in Israel. Or have I missed all of the bombings of High Barnet and Golders Green by the PLO and Hamas?

kdsub -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/25/2012 3:41:33 PM)
Just asking Moon do you believe all and all my statement wrong? Butch

Moonhead -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/26/2012 5:22:38 AM)
Generalisations are always wrong.

mnottertail -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/26/2012 7:12:07 AM)
Calley was under house arrest for a couple years, and the Army (who really didn't want to prosecute him anyway) let him walk after the newspaper headlines had died down.

thompsonx -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/26/2012 7:24:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark General Sherman once said “This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war.”...Had he not done so, the South may have resisted further and longer than they did. The point being, that war should be horrible, so that we seek ways to end it. Collateral damage and death of civilians bring home the facts that it must end, and brings the parties to the table, if they are civilized enough to do so. Great post tweak... Sherman was a fucking moron with little military talent, making war on women and children is always easier than fighting soldiers with guns. The people of savanah managed to snooker him and nathan bedford forrest scared the living shit out of him. But then forrest scared the living shit out of most of his enemies.

meatcleaver -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/26/2012 9:51:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Ask the majority of Palestinians if they differentiate between Israelis and Jews…also ask the majority of Israelis if they differentiate Palestinians from Arabs. Any who would not know the answer to the above questions has a fundamental naive misunderstanding of the situation and region. Butch The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is over land, not race, since both are semitic and the Levant Arabs and Jews are the same people. The reason the Palestinians widened their conflict was because the international community was letting them rot in refugee camps that were little better than open sewers, the wider conflict was to put the Palestinian issue on the international agenda. In that they succeeded. Anyway. many of the Levant Arabs are descendants of Jews who converted to Islam in the 7th-8th century. In fact, most of the Arab world is not Arab, the Arabs mainly being an elite that took over the top of societies they conquered and didn't bring mass immigration of Arabs in their wake, because there was not enough Arabs in the first place. This is not unusual in historic conquests, like there wasn't enough Romans to conquer Roman Europe, they had to turn locals into Romans.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/26/2012 10:26:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Generalisations are always wrong. [:D]

Moonhead -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/26/2012 12:36:32 PM)
I'm glad somebody noticed that one. [;)]

kdsub -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/26/2012 4:16:30 PM)
quote: Generalisations are always wrong Got those dancing shoes on again I see...guess I'll just hum a tune. Butch

vincentML -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/26/2012 7:59:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is over land, not race, since both are semitic and the Levant Arabs and Jews are the same people. The reason the Palestinians widened their conflict was because the international community was letting them rot in refugee camps that were little better than open sewers, the wider conflict was to put the Palestinian issue on the international agenda. In that they succeeded. Semitic refers to a group of languages; not to genetic lines. Italian-Americans and Norwegian-Americans may all speak English. That hardly allows us to conclude there is a significant genetic link. The Palestinian "issue" predates and was well known before the refugee camps inasmuch as the refugee camps are result of the 1948 War. quote: Anyway. many of the Levant Arabs are descendants of Jews who converted to Islam in the 7th-8th century. In fact, most of the Arab world is not Arab, the Arabs mainly being an elite that took over the top of societies they conquered and didn't bring mass immigration of Arabs in their wake, because there was not enough Arabs in the first place. Perhaps you could offer citations to support these remarkable certainties.[8\|]

Rule -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/26/2012 8:32:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri [:D] [sm=goodpost.gif]

JeffBC -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/26/2012 9:49:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle We are all agreed (I presume) that the current rules are an improvement on no rules at all, even if their enforcement is uneven. Uh no. We cannot all agree on that. It offends my sense of honor. Here is what you are asking me to agree to: The US and other major powers will create rules which are binding on everyone but them and their allies. When stated in that way I'm sure you can seem my squeamishness at so casually accepting your statement. Now... if you want to talk about setting up some sort of actually functional system that would actually be binding on all participants I'd love to have that talk. But I have just one question. How, exactly, are you planning on enforcing those rules and systems... whatever they are... on the countries with the most tanks/nukes/carriers? You, apparently, have some sort of belief that our leaders have some sort of common decency or honor. Ample evidence demonstrates otherwise. While we're at it, how are you going to convince the countries and causes with fewer tanks/nukes/carriers to not find other strategies to achieve their aims? In my opinion, by the time combat starts we are at "survival of the fittest" and "might makes right" time. History supports those conclusions wouldn't you say? The more speculative part that I wonder about though is whether bogus rules are doing nothing but putting lipstick on a very, very ugly pig. It might in fact be better to just acknowledge the awfulness of war which might serve to limit people's willingness to engage in it. By that same reasoning all the "honor" and "glory" talk of battle offends my sensibilities because it isn't so and encourages war.

Edwynn -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/26/2012 11:43:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: The Arab authority wasn't ruling at that time. I gave a link to the agreement where an Arab authority, along with Great Briton, had agreed then reneged as has proven to be an ongoing tactic in dealings with Israel. That is all fine and well, if we ignore just what and who constituted "Arab authority" at the time of said 'agreement' in question, and just what outside powers previously, and selectively, had assigned this "authority" to whom in the first place.

meatcleaver -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/27/2012 1:37:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Semitic refers to a group of languages; not to genetic lines. Italian-Americans and Norwegian-Americans may all speak English. That hardly allows us to conclude there is a significant genetic link. From the online dictionary. Se·mit·ic play_w2("S0258800") (s[image]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif[/image]-m[image]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif[/image]t[image]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif[/image][image]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif[/image]k) adj. 1. Of or relating to the Semites or their languages or cultures.2. Of, relating to, or constituting a subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic language group that includes Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic, and Aramaic.n. 1. The Semitic languages.2. Any one of the Semitic languages. Semitic [sɪˈmɪtɪk] less commonly, Shemitic n (Linguistics / Languages) a branch or subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic family of languages that includes Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, Amharic, and such ancient languages as Akkadian and Phoenicianadj 1. (Linguistics / Languages) denoting, relating to, or belonging to this group of languages2. (Social Science / Peoples) denoting, belonging to, or characteristic of any of the peoples speaking a Semitic language, esp the Jews or the Arabs3. (Social Science / Peoples) another word for Jewish quote: ORIGINAL:vincentML The Palestinian "issue" predates and was well known before the refugee camps inasmuch as the refugee camps are result of the 1948 War. Yes, I agree. It started with the influx of large numbers of European Jews into the Levant from the late 19th century. quote: ORIGINAL:vincentML Perhaps you could offer citations to support these remarkable certainties.[8\|] I know it is upsetting for people who take part in conflicts and who demonise their enemies only to find in fact, they are the same people as the people they are fighting. In Israel, genetic differences are ignored amongst various Jewish groups while at the same time accentuating the differences between Jews and none Jews, even if all share the same origins. Books like Harry Ostrer's “Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People,” claim to be science while subjectively using results to explain away, not only Khazarians but the large numbers of well documented none Jewish converts in Spain in the first century AD. It is also well docmented (in Jewish hitory too) that Jews married into local populations and converted people as they went, particularly in north Africa and the Levant. The Levant which we are now discussing saw large numbers of locals converting to Islam in the wake of the muslim expansion. I could go on and on. We come to a point of who is a Jew and who isn't and genetically, that is one of perception, you accentuate the similarities or you accentuate the differences, ultimately the choice is cultural. Let me illustrate. I have two friends who have Jewish fathers but because their mothers aren't Jews, they aren't. However, depending what you are looking for in a genetic sample and what you want to prove, both would turn up in samples as Jews or if you want to eliminate them, you use matriarchal DNA testing. The choice of which type of testing to use is cultural, who is a Jew and who isn't a Jew is cultural, not scientific. It all comes down to accentuating difference or ignoring difference. Since so much genetics are shared by all indigenous people of the Levant, Israeli scientists tend to accentuate difference but it ain't really science. People are too alike for that, even people who are separated by millennia, never mind intermingled populations which are known to have intermarried, converted, intermarried and converted etc over the centuries. An interesting read for you. http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/01/shared-genetic-heritage-of-jews-and.html

tweakabelle -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/27/2012 2:42:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle We are all agreed (I presume) that the current rules are an improvement on no rules at all, even if their enforcement is uneven. Uh no. We cannot all agree on that. It offends my sense of honor. Here is what you are asking me to agree to: The US and other major powers will create rules which are binding on everyone but them and their allies. When stated in that way I'm sure you can seem my squeamishness at so casually accepting your statement. When stated like that, I share your squeamishness. Fortunately that statement describes not the rules, but the selective enforcement of those rules. The rules are enshrined in the Geneva Conventions, which are accepted as part of the body of international law, whether parties are signatories or not. These laws are binding on all parties engaged in conflict whether they are State actors or not. quote: Now... if you want to talk about setting up some sort of actually functional system that would actually be binding on all participants I'd love to have that talk. But I have just one question. How, exactly, are you planning on enforcing those rules and systems... whatever they are... on the countries with the most tanks/nukes/carriers? You, apparently, have some sort of belief that our leaders have some sort of common decency or honor. Ample evidence demonstrates otherwise. While we're at it, how are you going to convince the countries and causes with fewer tanks/nukes/carriers to not find other strategies to achieve their aims? In my opinion, by the time combat starts we are at "survival of the fittest" and "might makes right" time. History supports those conclusions wouldn't you say? The rules will be arrived at in the same way that the Geneva Conventions were arrived at - by international agreement. The key point is taking enforcement and prosecution out of the hands of individual States (where they currently lie in the first instance) and creating, as previously stated, a truly independent body to monitor their operation and take legal action when necessary. quote: The more speculative part that I wonder about though is whether bogus rules are doing nothing but putting lipstick on a very, very ugly pig. It might in fact be better to just acknowledge the awfulness of war which might serve to limit people's willingness to engage in it. By that same reasoning all the "honor" and "glory" talk of battle offends my sensibilities because it isn't so and encourages war. Isn't the above what happens at the moment? There are a few rules, which are inadequate and ignored by many players and when enforced, selectively enforced. As things stand, the chance of any individual facing trial and being convicted of war crimes are minimal (unless they come from some obscure powerless African State or were on the losing side in a war). The solution is not to abandon the rules (pitiful as they are) but to strengthen them, and take their enforcement out of the hands of individual States. It is no different to closing a loophole in the internal laws of a State. When these are discovered, the gaps in the law are filled, enforcement strengthened and we keep changing them till we get them right. I don't see that international law should be any different. I would love to continue this conversation with you but alas I will be away for a couple of months in SE Asia from tomorrow. I'm glad we have the same goal - the de-legitimisation of warfare. Thanks for an interesting exchange of perspectives.

tweakabelle -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/27/2012 3:03:20 AM)
Here's an interesting bit of background to the forthcoming UN vote on raising Palestine's status: Australia, which traditionally has slavishly followed US lead on matters relating to Palestine, will abstain from voting. This decision is seen as significant for a number of reasons. The PM, who is pro-Zionist, tried to insist on voting against the resolution but was rolled by her own party members who staged a revolt against her policy. The decision also breaks with the bi-partisan approach to foreign policy, where Govt and opposition parties agreed on foreign policy matters (the Right Wing Opposition wants Australia to vote against Palestinian membership). Also, Australia has traditionally been a strong supporter of Israel in the international arena. It's yet another sign of shifting world allegiances and increasing support for a Palestinian State. Last time I checked over 130 nations had officially recognised Palestine as a State. The Palestinians will win their elevated status easily garnering more than 2/3 of the world's nations support. It's another sign of Israel's ever-increasing international isolation. There will be joy in Ramallah and Occupied Palestine and sharp disappointment in Israel at these decisions by Australia and by the UN.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.1582031