Knife wrote:In all seriousness, I think a new convention on the law of war is in order. New technology and the ability of persision strikes negate alot of the old laws as well as the rise of irregular activities and sponsorship of such, makes alot of the Geneva Convention and the Laws of War incompatable with modern warfare.
It would, imo, clear up these stupid situations, mostley used for political gain, of 'one mans terrorist is another mans freedomfighter' that so infest gobal political disscussions.
Interesting idea.
I would submit that the Geneva Convention is just a codification of the silly "honour rules" and chivalry concepts of old, albeit updated and liberalized to allow for modern techniques of warfare. Any justification for a particular rule sounds ridiculous in the context of a system where carpet-bombing of civilian territory is permissible.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
I would submit that the Geneva Convention is just a codification of the silly "honour rules" and chivalry concepts of old, albeit updated and liberalized to allow for modern techniques of warfare. Any justification for a particular rule sounds ridiculous in the context of a system where carpet-bombing of civilian territory is permissible.
Which is why it should be updated or thrown out and a new one made. Putting the theoretical brakes on war makes good sense and now a days, carpet bombing of population centers makes little sence in a tactical or strategic way. Carpet bombing was only a tactic due to the impercise ability of bombs to hit targets, that is no longer a big problem with a margin of error of around a meter so I would agree to ban the tactic with international treaties.
The Laws I really would like to reforge would be the irregualar combatent and illegal combatent laws. These should be crafted in such a way as to help the international comunity fight against 'terrorism' as such as the term originally applied. Individual countries should still be able to kick the shit out of other countries for irregular warfare directed at them, but for paramilitary civilian groups with no country nor goverment behind them, a new international Law of War treaty should ban them as to give legal justification and incentive for countries to squash em.
As per specific wording of such laws, I would have to ponder awhile. But as a base idea, I like it.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
Darth Wong wrote:
Good. The rapid-fire dropping of two A-bombs in order to make the Japanese think that the USA had a vast supply of these weapons was clearly an example of terrorism according to your definition. Bzzzzzzt! Try again!
Not so fast with that Bzzzt! I restricted my definition of terrorists to a subset of guerilla fighters. The US forces of WW2 hardly count as guerillas!
Darth Wong wrote:
Sorry, but when it comes right down to it, terrorism is just a convenient and inconsistently applied label. As BoredShirtless showed, the dictionary definition of terrorism actually encompasses most acts of war.
Agreed, as far as the dictionary definition goes, and the common usage.
Darth Wong wrote:Good. The rapid-fire dropping of two A-bombs in order to make the Japanese think that the USA had a vast supply of these weapons was clearly an example of terrorism according to your definition. Bzzzzzzt! Try again!
Not so fast with that Bzzzt! I restricted my definition of terrorists to a subset of guerilla fighters. The US forces of WW2 hardly count as guerillas!
Then your definition is precisely what we said it was: a definition which is dependent on who does it. The same act, when committed by you, is not terrorism. That's the whole point Kynes tried to make at the beginning of this thread.
Sorry, but the bzzzzzt! still applies. In fact, I have a whole bucket of bzzzzzt! here with your name on it.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
I would submit that the Geneva Convention is just a codification of the silly "honour rules" and chivalry concepts of old, albeit updated and liberalized to allow for modern techniques of warfare. Any justification for a particular rule sounds ridiculous in the context of a system where carpet-bombing of civilian territory is permissible.
Which is why it should be updated or thrown out and a new one made. Putting the theoretical brakes on war makes good sense and now a days, carpet bombing of population centers makes little sence in a tactical or strategic way. Carpet bombing was only a tactic due to the impercise ability of bombs to hit targets, that is no longer a big problem with a margin of error of around a meter so I would agree to ban the tactic with international treaties.
The Laws I really would like to reforge would be the irregualar combatent and illegal combatent laws. These should be crafted in such a way as to help the international comunity fight against 'terrorism' as such as the term originally applied. Individual countries should still be able to kick the shit out of other countries for irregular warfare directed at them, but for paramilitary civilian groups with no country nor goverment behind them, a new international Law of War treaty should ban them as to give legal justification and incentive for countries to squash em.
As per specific wording of such laws, I would have to ponder awhile. But as a base idea, I like it.
You want a blanket ban on paramilitary groups without a country, and the international legal machinary to "squash em"? That's barbaric.
Maybe this is worth repeating: the definition of the word isn't the problem, it's the people who abuse it and the idiots who just suck it up like good little sheep.
BoredShirtless wrote:
You want a blanket ban on paramilitary groups without a country, and the international legal machinary to "squash em"? That's barbaric.
Why? Like I said, exact wording would take further pondering. But why would a legal mechinism for international affairs to dismantle and make illegal, irregular civilian paramilitary groups a thing of the past a bad thing?
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
Wympel and his mate Chomsky wrote:
[Terrorism]: In acceptable discourse, as can easily be demonstrated, the term is used to refer to terrorist acts that THEY carry out against US, not those that WE carry out against THEM
Circular argument? I guess I should've bothered to write up the commonly accepted definition of terrorism that BoredShirtless provided (and which Chomsky uses) to defend against such awesome criticism.
BoredShirtless wrote:
You want a blanket ban on paramilitary groups without a country, and the international legal machinary to "squash em"? That's barbaric.
Why? Like I said, exact wording would take further pondering. But why would a legal mechinism for international affairs to dismantle and make illegal, irregular civilian paramilitary groups a thing of the past a bad thing?
Well I'd argue it already IS a bad thing. And to make it even worse, would stifle causes which are absolutely legitimate. Unless, you think the Palestinians don't have the right to fight?
Sorry too much shit is going on over this thread, and it's violating some preexisting board policies (the No Palestine/Isreal & No Northern Ireland policy for obvious reasons)
Thread Locked
Oxidation: Thread Contians elements that can Provoke a full Fledged Flamewar
Explosive/Flamable: Contains Flamebait under pressure.
Radioactive: See Posts by Imperialist <High Bozon Radiation Detected>
Thank you.
The scariest folk song lyrics are "My Boy Grew up to be just like me" from cats in the cradle by Harry Chapin
I guess I should've bothered to write up the commonly accepted definition of terrorism that BoredShirtless provided (and which Chomsky uses) to defend against such awesome criticism.
