ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 22nd October 2017, 03:05 PM   #41
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,705
Originally Posted by Dabop View Post
I think many of them see the hypocrisy of the west in starting wars based on lies and deception that created the conditions for Isis to begin, that killed millions, cost billions and continue to this day having what is basically an invasion force in countries where they arent and never were wanted by anyone except the ones doing the invading
There are fairly easy ways to avoid getting invaded by the USA. A pity that Saddam and the Taliban didn't avail themselves of them.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 05:49 PM   #42
Dabop
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
There are fairly easy ways to avoid getting invaded by the USA. A pity that Saddam and the Taliban didn't avail themselves of them.

Looks at the above statement.....



Remember that thing I mentioned in my post?

begins with H, ends in Y
__________________
It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing. Loss Leader
Dabop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 06:33 PM   #43
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,705
Originally Posted by Dabop View Post
Looks at the above statement.....



Remember that thing I mentioned in my post?

begins with H, ends in Y
Afghanistan was in danger of being attacked.

North Korea is in danger of being attacked.

Canada is in no danger of being attacked.

(The reason is not hypocrisy )
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 07:14 PM   #44
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,292
You know, there are shades of grey between lying in the media, maybe even thinking of them as hypocrites, and outright going and doing terrorism. Maybe not 50 shades, but there are.

Look, I see a lot of attempts at whitewashing. Maybe those who joined didn't know what ISIS was really doing. Maybe they were just fed up with the west. Maybe they just didn't view things the same way. Etc.

Maybe.

But the problem is, none of that is really an excuse.

For a start, most terrorism is domestic. MOST of the terrorism in the Islamic world is actualy aimed at other sects, secular leaders, communities which don't support the terrorists, etc. THOSE are the first and foremost to be terrorized.

And the ISIS has done more than its fair share of that. In fact, they haven't even done a fraction as much terrorism in the west, as they're busy terrorizing the locals into submission.

And we're not talking top secret stuff like whether the Nazis were working on a nuclear bomb or not in '44. We're talking stuff that happens in the streets every day. The whole overt purpose of ISIS is to force a theocracy, by any force necessary, upon a majority which isn't nearly that radical yet, and they're not entirely shy or secretive about using force to keep that majority in line. Nor about barbaric executions of prisoners. Hell, they FILM that stuff.

Anyone who can claim that they were there for months, maybe years, actually were a member of it all, fought in all those zones, and somehow was completely oblivious to the whole terrorizing the locals and executing prisoners... I can't even find an euphemism, really. They're either lying or really really stupid.

The other excuses fail equally.

'Maybe they were fed up with the western lies.' Sure, but there's a difference between that and going and taking some lives for it. There's lots of things and people I'm fed up with. We all are. Even Jesus had a bunch of people he was fed up with. (Seriously, read his tirades against the Pharisees. He compares them to vipers in Matthew.) That part is normal and understandable. BUT here's the thing: I don't go shoot some civilians or burn a soldier alive for it. It's that extra step that's the crucial difference.

'Maybe they see things differently.' Sure, but so did Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber, and that wasn't an excuse. Or Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao for that matter. But if their seeing things differently makes them think it's OK to go kill someone for disagreeing with them, or for any other reason, and they actually go do that extra step, then that's when we want them put away somewhere where they won't do it again. Sometimes even somewhere 6 ft deep.

Or to use justice terms, the existence of the Mens Rea (evil intent or state of mind) does NOT excuse the Actus Reus (evil act.) The idea that yeah, but they were seeing things in a way that made sense to actually go and do something evil, is just stupid. The existence of the Mens Rea what MAKES it a crime. Without the evil state of mind leading to the crime, it would be an accident or negligence. The evil intent or state of mind is what escalates the gravity, not something that excuses the evildoer.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 22nd October 2017 at 07:19 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 07:17 PM   #45
Dabop
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Canada is in no danger of being attacked.
With the orange one in charge, I wouldnt be so sure about that anymore...
__________________
It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing. Loss Leader
Dabop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 07:19 PM   #46
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,292
And you think that if the people of Canada turned to terrorism it would help?

Hell, you don't even have to look at Canada. Look at Saudi Arabia. When was the last time they were in any danger of being invaded by the west?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 09:24 PM   #47
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,612
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
You know, there are shades of grey between lying in the media, maybe even thinking of them as hypocrites, and outright going and doing terrorism. Maybe not 50 shades, but there are.

Look, I see a lot of attempts at whitewashing. Maybe those who joined didn't know what ISIS was really doing. Maybe they were just fed up with the west. Maybe they just didn't view things the same way. Etc.

Maybe.

But the problem is, none of that is really an excuse.

For a start, most terrorism is domestic. MOST of the terrorism in the Islamic world is actualy aimed at other sects, secular leaders, communities which don't support the terrorists, etc. THOSE are the first and foremost to be terrorized.

And the ISIS has done more than its fair share of that. In fact, they haven't even done a fraction as much terrorism in the west, as they're busy terrorizing the locals into submission.

And we're not talking top secret stuff like whether the Nazis were working on a nuclear bomb or not in '44. We're talking stuff that happens in the streets every day. The whole overt purpose of ISIS is to force a theocracy, by any force necessary, upon a majority which isn't nearly that radical yet, and they're not entirely shy or secretive about using force to keep that majority in line. Nor about barbaric executions of prisoners. Hell, they FILM that stuff.

Anyone who can claim that they were there for months, maybe years, actually were a member of it all, fought in all those zones, and somehow was completely oblivious to the whole terrorizing the locals and executing prisoners... I can't even find an euphemism, really. They're either lying or really really stupid.

The other excuses fail equally.

'Maybe they were fed up with the western lies.' Sure, but there's a difference between that and going and taking some lives for it. There's lots of things and people I'm fed up with. We all are. Even Jesus had a bunch of people he was fed up with. (Seriously, read his tirades against the Pharisees. He compares them to vipers in Matthew.) That part is normal and understandable. BUT here's the thing: I don't go shoot some civilians or burn a soldier alive for it. It's that extra step that's the crucial difference.

'Maybe they see things differently.' Sure, but so did Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber, and that wasn't an excuse. Or Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao for that matter. But if their seeing things differently makes them think it's OK to go kill someone for disagreeing with them, or for any other reason, and they actually go do that extra step, then that's when we want them put away somewhere where they won't do it again. Sometimes even somewhere 6 ft deep.

Or to use justice terms, the existence of the Mens Rea (evil intent or state of mind) does NOT excuse the Actus Reus (evil act.) The idea that yeah, but they were seeing things in a way that made sense to actually go and do something evil, is just stupid. The existence of the Mens Rea what MAKES it a crime. Without the evil state of mind leading to the crime, it would be an accident or negligence. The evil intent or state of mind is what escalates the gravity, not something that excuses the evildoer.
100% agree with this.

Heaven knows there are enough apologists for this bunch of murdering scumbags. I'm not prepared to give returning ISIS recruits a free pass because they might have been too stupid or too naive to see what was going on with ISIS.

At the very least, I expect these returnees to be charged with treason... they went to another country and fought for a foreign, proscribed organisation against the Common Good and Common Interests of their fellow Nationals/Citizens.

When all said and done, it comes down to a choice between the rights of these criminals to return to their country (where they pose a huge risk to everyone) and the rights of my family and I to safety and security... I choose our rights over the rights of the criminals.

Hell, the British charged Lord Haw Haw with treason just for making propaganda radio broadcasts that were totally ineffective and that had no impact on anyone. He was a sad man who was largely regarded as a joke, but otherwise, was not a threat to anyone. The British Courts didn't see the funny side, found him guilty and hanged him.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 22nd October 2017 at 09:31 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 01:44 AM   #48
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,292
Well, personally I'm not a fan of the death penalty, mostly on the grounds that we've been wrong an awful lot of times before. Once you kill someone you can't undo that if they turn out to be innocent after all.

But yeah, personally I'd say if they want to come back, sure, by all means. But if there's any indication that they've actually been part of a terrorist organization and/or fought against their country, then they should rightfully stand on trial for it.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 01:51 AM   #49
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,174
British IS fighters 'must be killed', minister says.

The "only way" to deal with British IS fighters in Syria is "in almost every case" to kill them, the minister for international development has said.
Rory Stewart said converts to so-called Islamic State believed in an "extremely hateful doctrine" and had moved away from any allegiance to Britain.
They can expect to be killed because of the "serious danger" they pose to the UK's security, he said.
The government said his comments were in line with the UK's stated position.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41717394
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 02:37 AM   #50
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,083
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
British IS fighters 'must be killed', minister says.

The "only way" to deal with British IS fighters in Syria is "in almost every case" to kill them, the minister for international development has said.
Rory Stewart said converts to so-called Islamic State believed in an "extremely hateful doctrine" and had moved away from any allegiance to Britain.
They can expect to be killed because of the "serious danger" they pose to the UK's security, he said.
The government said his comments were in line with the UK's stated position.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41717394
I can see a few problems with that. If they're killed in battle, or in drone strikes while still with IS, then they're casualties of war, no problem, and I can see that the government may want to try to make sure they're all killed in that way so as to avoid any legal issues after the fact. If, however, they surrender or are captured, then either there's an armed conflict in progress, in which case arguably the Geneva Conventions apply, or there isn't, in which case they're subject to the laws of a country that doesn't have a death penalty. The whole point of our opposition to IS is that we have humanitarian laws and a better attitude to human rights, and throwing even part of that away just because IS is such a threat is a bad move. I agree with HansMustermann on this one; we have a criminal justice system with laws and punishments that cover such things as murder, terrorism and treason, so we should apply it as it stands. That may well mean that most of them spend the rest of their lives in prison; fine, that's the system we have, and we shouldn't compromise it.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 03:28 AM   #51
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,524
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
British IS fighters 'must be killed', minister says.

The "only way" to deal with British IS fighters in Syria is "in almost every case" to kill them, the minister for international development has said.
Rory Stewart said converts to so-called Islamic State believed in an "extremely hateful doctrine" and had moved away from any allegiance to Britain.
They can expect to be killed because of the "serious danger" they pose to the UK's security, he said.
The government said his comments were in line with the UK's stated position.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41717394
The easiest solution is indeed to kill them in battle. IIRC there were claims that some countries in the coalition against ISIS specifically targeted their own nationals who had joined ISIS.

ETA: with the caveats mentioned by Dave.

Revoking citizenship is also a good option, but you need hard evidence they actually fought, and there's this pesky problem with making people stateless. A month ago, the Netherlands revoked the citizenship of four dual nationals, so now they're Morocco's problem (*)

Of those who return, there may be a few who are truly remorseful of what they fell for and who may even be valuable in keeping others from going down the same rabbit hole. But I don't hold my breath.

As or the rest, they fall into one or more of the categories:
1) they're prosecuted and end up in the justice system
2) they need to be kept under surveillance
3) they're so messed up by what they saw and experienced that they're in (constant) need of mental health services.

I don't see any upsides whatsoever.

(*) I don't feel sorry for Morocco: they make it impossible to revoke your citizenship. If you think your citizenship is so valuable, you should also accept the downsides of it.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about AnjezŽ Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 06:09 AM   #52
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,292
Bear in mind, though, that the Geneva convention also has some limitations on who qualifies as a privileged combatant. (International legalese for a combatant who is afforded the protections stipulated in the convention.)

For a start, it only affords you ANY protection when you're fighting in a war between two or more sovereign states. Internal rebellions and terrorizing civilians do not grant you ANY protection, regardless of whether you wear a uniform or not.

Also, that means RECOGNIZED states. If you decide to just call your occupied zone a state and nobody recognizes it as such, well, you're not much of a protected combatant.

Second, what many people don't realize, is that according to 4.A.2.d of the 1949 Geneva convention, it explicitly ONLY affords you any protection IF and ONLY IF you followed the international laws and customs of combat yourself.

That doesn't just mean wearing a uniform (that was 4.A.2.b.) ANY unlawful action under the convention disqualifies you from any protection. For example, the moment you film yourself beheading a prisoner, you lost any rights under the convention right there and then. If someone decides to just put a bullet in YOUR head when YOU surrender, congrats, that's your just rewards.

Now virtually all countries refrain from availing themselves of what I just wrote in the previous paragraph, because nobody wants to open that can of worms. But technically it does mean that most of ISIS falls waay outside the protections of the Geneva convention.

Mind you, all modern countries have their own police rules for dealing with captured terrorists, which tend to also forbid just shooting them inna head. But really, that's what counts, not the Geneva convention.

Third, if you want to claim protection under the Geneva convention, then it seems to me like you also accept the rest of the convention. Namely that it qualifies a bunch of stuff as war crimes. So, congrats, you can't be hanged on the spot, but you just recognized the authority of the international court in Hague. And can be tried for killing those prisoners and civilians. And unlike the UK criminal system, the international court IIRC DOES have a death penalty. It can and totally WILLL hang your sorry ass, if you crossed too many lines. So I'm really not sure if anyone would prefer to be tried THERE for their merry time in ISIS.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 23rd October 2017 at 06:15 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 06:30 AM   #53
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,083
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Bear in mind, though, that the Geneva convention also has some limitations on who qualifies as a privileged combatant. (International legalese for a combatant who is afforded the protections stipulated in the convention.)

For a start, it only affords you ANY protection when you're fighting in a war between two or more sovereign states. Internal rebellions and terrorizing civilians do not grant you ANY protection, regardless of whether you wear a uniform or not.

Also, that means RECOGNIZED states. If you decide to just call your occupied zone a state and nobody recognizes it as such, well, you're not much of a protected combatant.

Second, what many people don't realize, is that according to 4.A.2.d of the 1949 Geneva convention, it explicitly ONLY affords you any protection IF and ONLY IF you followed the international laws and customs of combat yourself.

That doesn't just mean wearing a uniform (that was 4.A.2.b.) ANY unlawful action under the convention disqualifies you from any protection. For example, the moment you film yourself beheading a prisoner, you lost any rights under the convention right there and then. If someone decides to just put a bullet in YOUR head when YOU surrender, congrats, that's your just rewards.
I'm not convinced that this is in fact true. Article 3 of the Geneva Convention affords protection to those engaging in armed conflicts where one of the parties is not a state, which is less than the protection afforded to participants in wars between states, provided they have laid down their arms or are hors de combat due to wounds, illness, detention or any other cause. There's a lot of international debate going on about whether Article 3 applies to situations such as IS, but at the very least it would be foolish to state outright that it's legally acceptable for a soldier to kill a member of IS who has surrendered and is clearly unable to resume fighting. As far as I'm aware the UK is a signatory to this part of the Geneva Conventions, though I believe the USA isn't.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 08:46 AM   #54
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,292
Well, mind you, personally I'd rather they didn't just shoot them on the spot. You know, can of worms, opening, etc. Take them to Hague and hang them there, civilized like

But I'm hard pressed to see anything that qualifies those as anything else than unlawful combatants.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 09:01 AM   #55
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,083
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, mind you, personally I'd rather they didn't just shoot them on the spot. You know, can of worms, opening, etc. Take them to Hague and hang them there, civilized like
I'm fully in favour of them facing the full penalty of law for whatever they've done, yes; alternatively I have no problem with them being specifically targeted as long as they remain combatants. Summary execution is not, in my mind, a good thing.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 10:44 AM   #56
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,292
Oh, I never said it was a GOOD thing. Just that one can't invoke the international laws only when one personally needs protection.

Conventions and treaties are a two way street. We didn't sign those just because we're that generous with YOUR people, but rather a bunch of us agreed that we don't want it done to OUR people. So we basically aggreed that I won't hang your soldiers when they surrender -- Ragnarr Lothbrok style -- if you don't hang mine. I won't line up your civilians against a wall, if you agree to also not line mine against a wall. Etc.

You cross that line, well, you have one thing or another coming.

So yeah, to return to ISIS, sure, it wouldn't be a GOOD thing to set that precedent, and I'd rather they didn't. But I'm not sure the Geneva convention actually forbids it. Is all I'm saying. And I'm only saying it because some people seemed to think that everyone is automatically protected by the Geneva convention, not because I advocate killing anyone.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 23rd October 2017 at 10:45 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 10:48 AM   #57
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,292
In fact, in my ideal world, even wars wouldn't involve as much killing.

My ideal kind of war was basically one that happened waaay back between Moldavia and Wallachia. They met at a bridge over the river that was their border and, well, neither was apparently that determined to charge across a bridge for whatever they were fighting for. So they decided to send a champion from each side to the centre of the bridge and settle it by a... drinking contest.

IIRC the champion from Moldavia drank the other guy under the table, brought much honour to his land, and was knighted for it
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 11:45 AM   #58
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,174
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
In fact, in my ideal world, even wars wouldn't involve as much killing.

My ideal kind of war was basically one that happened waaay back between Moldavia and Wallachia. They met at a bridge over the river that was their border and, well, neither was apparently that determined to charge across a bridge for whatever they were fighting for. So they decided to send a champion from each side to the centre of the bridge and settle it by a... drinking contest.

IIRC the champion from Moldavia drank the other guy under the table, brought much honour to his land, and was knighted for it
That's not war, that's diplomacy.

A show of force, a peaceful alternative, and an amicable resolution. It helps when neither side thinks the stakes are very high.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2017, 11:17 PM   #59
Dabop
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 416
Re Canada being safe, the orange one wants a 300% tariff on one of your exports already, so I wouldnt feel too safe...

Re Moldavia- now THATS a war!
(start doing that, and we'll be declaring war on every country in the world here- DAILY!!!!!)

__________________
It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing. Loss Leader
Dabop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2017, 02:00 PM   #60
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 6,419
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
But I'm hard pressed to see anything that qualifies those as anything else than unlawful combatants.
Ah, that status that only the USA self-servingly uses....
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2017, 06:03 PM   #61
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,174
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Ah, that status that only the USA self-servingly uses....
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

That works both ways, incidentally. If you have a problem with the USA's usage, do something about it. Something other than Appeal to Obscure Internet Shaming, I mean. If you can.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 09:42 AM   #62
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,292
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Ah, that status that only the USA self-servingly uses....
The notion existed at the very least since the First Hague Conference in 1899. Which was called by the Russian tsar, not by the USA, which, frankly, wasn't even much of a great power at the time.

While the conventions only define who is a LAWFUL combatant, it was well understood that everyone else doing any fighting is UNlawful by definition. And in fact, a lot of the talks there were explicitly about whether to consider armed militias like the francs-tireurs as unlawful combatants. Most of the great powers were for treating them as unlawful combatants and hanging them on the spot, while smaller countries kinda liked the idea of using partisans if attacked. Those disagreements are why there's a Martens Clause in the preamble there.

At any rate, the USA is FAR from being responsible for the notion.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2017, 03:05 AM   #63
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 6,419
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

That works both ways, incidentally. If you have a problem with the USA's usage, do something about it. Something other than Appeal to Obscure Internet Shaming, I mean. If you can.
Such as? This forum is chock full of people making observations about stuff they can't do anything about other than condemn. Is it just because this is something the USA is doing that makes you twitchy and demand people should "do something about it" over an above that condemnation?
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2017, 03:13 AM   #64
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, UK.
Posts: 6,419
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
The notion existed at the very least since the First Hague Conference in 1899. Which was called by the Russian tsar, not by the USA, which, frankly, wasn't even much of a great power at the time.

While the conventions only define who is a LAWFUL combatant, it was well understood that everyone else doing any fighting is UNlawful by definition. And in fact, a lot of the talks there were explicitly about whether to consider armed militias like the francs-tireurs as unlawful combatants. Most of the great powers were for treating them as unlawful combatants and hanging them on the spot, while smaller countries kinda liked the idea of using partisans if attacked. Those disagreements are why there's a Martens Clause in the preamble there.

At any rate, the USA is FAR from being responsible for the notion.
The difference is that while everyone else would be happy to treat them as lawful combatants or criminals subject to local law, the USA instead used it as an excuse to cart them off to legal limbo far away from the battlefield (sometimes when the subjects were not even on it).
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2017, 10:22 AM   #65
P.J. Denyer
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,735
Originally Posted by Dabop View Post
Re Moldavia- now THATS a war!
(start doing that, and we'll be declaring war on every country in the world here- DAILY!!!!!)

I'm prepared to serve my country in this capacity.
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2017, 02:54 PM   #66
Dabop
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
The difference is that while everyone else would be happy to treat them as lawful combatants or criminals subject to local law, the USA instead used it as an excuse to cart them off to legal limbo far away from the battlefield (sometimes when the subjects were not even on it).
It also shows the hypocrisy of condemning other groups for their "illegal actions" such as beheadings etc- whilst simultaneously breaking those same laws by such actions as redefining people as unlawful combatants and kidnapping them from places other than the actual battlefield, holding them without legal representation in other countries and torturing them

IF you dont hold fast to things like the Geneva convention (even when others break it) then you cant continue to claim protection from it either
As someone else said here- if you cant do the time, then dont do the crime- it works both ways you know....
__________________
It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing. Loss Leader
Dabop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2017, 03:39 PM   #67
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,705
Originally Posted by Dabop View Post

IF you dont hold fast to things like the Geneva convention (even when others break it) then you cant continue to claim protection from it either
As someone else said here- if you cant do the time, then dont do the crime- it works both ways you know....
Previous posts are a great example of holier than thou posturing, which completely fail to provide practical suggestions for:

- combatants should be locked up for the duration of hostilities (for ww2 this was only a few years.... Now it might be decades)
- how to gather forensics and witness statements in the middle of hostile afghan territory that is sufficient to satisfy the rules of evidence in the old Bailey
- the quoted portion, above, is so staggeringly foolish that I must conclude that they feel the police who shoot criminals in the line of duty are themselves criminals
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2017, 03:42 PM   #68
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,530
Originally Posted by Dabop View Post

IF you dont hold fast to things like the Geneva convention (even when others break it) then you cant continue to claim protection from it either
As someone else said here- if you cant do the time, then dont do the crime- it works both ways you know....
You mean that ISIS fighters have no claim to treatment under the Geneva Conventions? Okay, I can go with that.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2017, 11:17 PM   #69
Dabop
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
You mean that ISIS fighters have no claim to treatment under the Geneva Conventions? Okay, I can go with that.
How you managed to twist it around 180 deg staggers me...
No- exactly opposite that!
If you are not willing to abide by the accepted rules of war (and we all know the us doesnt) then you have no right to complain when others follow your lead and ignore it too

Leading to things like the beheadings that rile you up so much, yes they are illegal, but the us has done things illegal as well, so has no right to the moral high ground!
__________________
It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing. Loss Leader
Dabop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2017, 11:24 PM   #70
Dabop
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 416
Angry

Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Previous posts are a great example of holier than thou posturing, which completely fail to provide practical suggestions for:

- combatants should be locked up for the duration of hostilities (for ww2 this was only a few years.... Now it might be decades)
- how to gather forensics and witness statements in the middle of hostile afghan territory that is sufficient to satisfy the rules of evidence in the old Bailey
- the quoted portion, above, is so staggeringly foolish that I must conclude that they feel the police who shoot criminals in the line of duty are themselves criminals
What (if anything) this has to do with my post is beyond me, and is rather insulting as well
__________________
It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing. Loss Leader
Dabop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2017, 11:30 PM   #71
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,530
Originally Posted by Dabop View Post
How you managed to twist it around 180 deg staggers me...
No- exactly opposite that!
If you are not willing to abide by the accepted rules of war (and we all know the us doesnt) then you have no right to complain when others follow your lead and ignore it too

Leading to things like the beheadings that rile you up so much, yes they are illegal, but the us has done things illegal as well, so has no right to the moral high ground!
So if ISIS is not prepared to abide by the accepted rules of war they have no right to complain when others follow their lead. Is that right?

ETA: you do realize that you are now engaging in apologetics for beheadings. And I notice that you assert it riles me up. Do you mean you believe I am less approving of beheading than you are?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

Last edited by angrysoba; 29th October 2017 at 11:32 PM.
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 01:10 AM   #72
Dabop
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
So if ISIS is not prepared to abide by the accepted rules of war they have no right to complain when others follow their lead. Is that right?

ETA: you do realize that you are now engaging in apologetics for beheadings. And I notice that you assert it riles me up. Do you mean you believe I am less approving of beheading than you are?
So you basically are ok with a race to the bottom?

"He did it so I can too"
Most people stopped using that excuse in kindergarten, it didnt work then, why would it work now?

I suppose it all comes down to whether you wish to live in a society that has rules and punishments for those that break the rules or an anarchy
'Other drivers break the speed limits, so I can too'- you can try that excuse out next time you are caught speeding- dont think it will work tho

There are (and have long been) processes in place for war criminal acts, but it all falls apart when a supposedly civilised country decides to ignore them, why should anyone else abide by them either?

Moreover, if other countries decide to act in favour of punishing ALL war criminals in this conflict, will you be complaining when your solders are the ones on trial as well as theirs?

'I was just following orders' (because we all know thats a valid defence right- oh wait...)
__________________
It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing. Loss Leader
Dabop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 04:49 AM   #73
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,530
Originally Posted by Dabop View Post
So you basically are ok with a race to the bottom?

"He did it so I can too"
Most people stopped using that excuse in kindergarten, it didnt work then, why would it work now?
No, that is your argument, remember?

You wrote this:

Quote:
If you are not willing to abide by the accepted rules of war (and we all know the us doesnt) then you have no right to complain when others follow your lead and ignore it too
Quote:
the us has done things illegal as well, so has no right to the moral high ground!
YOU have been justifying ISIS behaviour throughout the whole thread on the basis that the US has done bad things.

Sorry, ISIS doesn't get a pass just because other people have done bad things. Stop being an apologist for them!
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 05:20 AM   #74
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,625
There are some parallels to the International Brigades returning after the Spanish civil war - some regarded them as dangerous communists - and some parallels with Nazis due to the similarity with that regime's horrible crimes.

Many of the Brigades members may have been zealous communists but after the Spanish Republic failed they didn't all go home and try to start fresh revolutions there. Without a Caliphate to fight for, won't some or possibly many ISIS supporters act the same?

And what we didn't do with Nazis is kill them all. The worst of the criminals, yes, but not the rank and file, not even zealots who thought the end justified the means. Just the blatant murderers.

So if we want to think of ourselves as the good guys, are we okay with saying "they knew what was going on" and summarily executing the lot of them? I'm not.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 05:46 AM   #75
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,530
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
There are some parallels to the International Brigades returning after the Spanish civil war - some regarded them as dangerous communists - and some parallels with Nazis due to the similarity with that regime's horrible crimes.

Many of the Brigades members may have been zealous communists but after the Spanish Republic failed they didn't all go home and try to start fresh revolutions there. Without a Caliphate to fight for, won't some or possibly many ISIS supporters act the same?
I find these parallels with the International Brigades too much to stomach. There is such a world of difference between what the two are fighting for that using one as a predictor for the behaviour of the other is unhelpful at best.

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
And what we didn't do with Nazis is kill them all. The worst of the criminals, yes, but not the rank and file, not even zealots who thought the end justified the means. Just the blatant murderers.

So if we want to think of ourselves as the good guys, are we okay with saying "they knew what was going on" and summarily executing the lot of them? I'm not.
No, we are not going to be summarily executing anyone. Killed on the battlefield, let's hope so, and good riddance, but if we are talking about British ISIS members returning to Britain then Britain does have the responsibility of prosecuting them. And yes, that means them retaining their citizenship and being prosecuted in Britain.

I would think that just as Britain cannot simply revoke the citizenship of a paedophile who goes abroad to places in South-East Asia and announce that they are the problem of Thailand, or Cambodia, or wherever, so too can Britain not just cut loose jihadis who cause mayhem to communities abroad. If they come back, arrest them and prosecute them. If they stay on the battlefield then kill them with drone strikes.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 08:26 AM   #76
Dabop
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
No, that is your argument, remember?

You wrote this:





YOU have been justifying ISIS behaviour throughout the whole thread on the basis that the US has done bad things.

Sorry, ISIS doesn't get a pass just because other people have done bad things. Stop being an apologist for them!
YOU have been justifying US behaviour throughout the whole thread on the basis that the ISIS has done bad things.
Sorry, the USA doesn't get a pass just because other people have done bad things. Stop being an apologist for them!


__________________
It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing. Loss Leader
Dabop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 08:32 AM   #77
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,288
Originally Posted by Dabop View Post
YOU have been justifying US behaviour throughout the whole thread on the basis that the ISIS has done bad things.
Sorry, the USA doesn't get a pass just because other people have done bad things. Stop being an apologist for them!


I'm sure you think you're being clever but, what's your point?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 08:33 AM   #78
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,174
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
The difference is that while everyone else would be happy to treat them as lawful combatants or criminals subject to local law, the USA instead used it as an excuse to cart them off to legal limbo far away from the battlefield (sometimes when the subjects were not even on it).
Where do you think the battlefield is, in a counterinsurgency where the enemy does not apply the principle of distinction?

Are you imagining a rocky hillside in Afghanistan, and there's a guy up there with an AK-47 and a talibani armband? And that's the battlefield?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 08:35 AM   #79
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,174
Originally Posted by Dabop View Post
How you managed to twist it around 180 deg staggers me...
No- exactly opposite that!
Ok, but it's actually true, though, right? I mean, you do agree that ISIS cannot claim protection under the Geneva Convention, right?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th October 2017, 08:43 AM   #80
Dabop
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 416
They dont have to claim it, signatories are bound by it, you dont get to pick and choose who it applies to (despite the US trying to do so by redefining people)
And I suspect eventually that the people involved will stand trial for their war crimes- on both sides...
__________________
It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing. Loss Leader
Dabop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:56 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.