There Are No Rules In War?

[Arthur Brain]

From a post in RM's recently closed thread:

"There are no rules in war. And they did not commit torture. But you already know, you have already been shown over and over. You lying pig faced demon."

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4158967&postcount=21

I'm hoping that the above is just a typical example of Nick M's stand alone lunacy but for anyone who agrees with him then what was the 'Geneva Convention' about along with prosecutions for those convicted of war atrocities?

Hopefully nobody will agree with the nut and as such this thread can just wither on the vine...

 

[WizardofOz]

For one who worships 'the right' he certainly isn't right about much

 

[Arthur Brain]

For one who worships 'the right' he certainly isn't right about much

Ain't that the truth, I wonder if he'll show up to explain how no such rules actually apply in war but I doubt it...

 

[WizardofOz]

Ain't that the truth, I wonder if he'll show up to explain how no such rules actually apply in war but I doubt it...

Nah. It would likely be a post about demon-possessed perverts/pigs/whores et al and otherwise lacking anything even resembling substance or meaning.

You know, like all of his posts.

More likely, he won't even attempt to defend his delusions at all.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nah. It would likely be a post about demon-possessed perverts/pigs/whores et al and otherwise lacking anything even resembling substance or meaning.

You know, like all of his posts.

More likely, he won't even attempt to defend his delusions at all.

:think:

Yeah, you're probably right...

 

[Buzzword]

I'm hoping that the above is just a typical example of Nick M's stand alone lunacy but for anyone who agrees with him then what was the 'Geneva Convention' about along with prosecutions for those convicted of war atrocities?

Oh, but if 'Murica does it, it's "what needs to be done," not "war crimes" or "torture" or "atrocities".

MY COUNTRY, RIGHT OR WRONG!

GOD BLESS 'MURICA!!

 

[shagster01]

There are rules in war. You don't have to follow the rules. But if you don't, others are free to deal with you as they must.

I'd love to see Nick argue against that.

 

[rexlunae]

I just don't understand how anyone can defend torture, much less someone who considers themselves a moral absolutist like Nick. And the hypocrisy of Rep. Gowdy was pretty stunning given his willingness to pontificate on the rule of law regarding immigration. And then Rocketman closing the thread because it was "off-topic", despite it essentially being a Trey Gowdy admiration thread...apparently without any willingness to hear a contrary view.

 

[99lamb]

Rules in war, depends on which side you ask.
Are there rules of engagement, rules when dealing with a captured combatant, use of specific weapons(chemical, biological, nuclear).. of course.
Now ask yourself what were the rules of war being used by the Vietnamese or the Taliban?
Depends on who you are asking. :salute:

 

[rexlunae]

Now ask yourself what were the rules of war being used by the Vietnamese or the Taliban?

So, if the enemy doesn't follow the rules, we shouldn't either? And our refusal to follow the rules justifies their refusal and vice versa, and before long, you're in a race to the bottom with no end in sight, and no one ever held to account for their actions.

The reason that we do not answer brutality in kind is that we don't want to create the world where it is ok to do that. It may not help us with some of our opponents, but it does help us with opponents who recognize certain basic standards, and at the very least, it affords us some part of the moral high ground.

 

[99lamb]

rexlunae
So, if the enemy doesn't follow the rules, we shouldn't either?

I did not suggest that to be the case, nor did I offer it. What I addressed was the idea that in War you will have distinct rules for engagement. Do you agree with that, because historically that has been the case.
How did the Japanese deal with American prisoners of war?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Rules in war, depends on which side you ask.
Are there rules of engagement, rules when dealing with a captured combatant, use of specific weapons(chemical, biological, nuclear).. of course.
Now ask yourself what were the rules of war being used by the Vietnamese or the Taliban?
Depends on who you are asking. :salute:

In 'conventional war' there are rules in place as to how to treat the 'adversary' etc. Do all sides strictly adhere to such? No, of course not as evidenced through WWII and beyond as well as beforehand frankly. So what 'rules' should we have in place if we just throw the Geneva Convention out of the window or should it just be 'anything goes'?

 

[99lamb]

In 'conventional war' there are rules in place as to how to treat the 'adversary' etc. Do all sides strictly adhere to such? No, of course not as evidenced through WWII and beyond as well as beforehand frankly. So what 'rules' should we have in place if we just throw the Geneva Convention out of the window or should it just be 'anything goes'?

The Geneva Convention only applies to those nation states that sign it.
In the war on terror who were the nations states? The U.S. and coalition forces were fighting against which recognized military?

 

[rexlunae]

The Geneva Convention only applies to those nation states that sign it.

Exactly how the Geneva Conventions apply isn't totally settled, but the notion that it only applies to nations fighting nations is not true. And torture is illegal under US law in any case, in addition to being morally abhorrent.

 

[99lamb]

Exactly how the Geneva Conventions apply isn't totally settled, but the notion that it only applies to nations fighting nations is not true. And torture is illegal under US law in any case, in addition to being morally abhorrent.

IF countries do not sign the Geneva Convention they are not held to its standards. Now if you are saying that war crimes can be charged against persons, that is another subject.
Torture is illegal under U.S. law, so the Senate Intelligence Committee members which were briefed on rendition are chargeable under war crimes: Feinstein, Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller, along with others?

 

[This Charming Manc]

such organisations also condone the use of rape, slavery and the slaughter of innocents as part of war.

Does this mean you think the US should when fighting those foes?

I would hope not, modern western democracies are held to higher standards than barbarians and murderers.

Rules in war, depends on which side you ask.
Are there rules of engagement, rules when dealing with a captured combatant, use of specific weapons(chemical, biological, nuclear).. of course.
Now ask yourself what were the rules of war being used by the Vietnamese or the Taliban?
Depends on who you are asking. :salute:

 

[musterion]

Someone said something about Geneva?

‘From now, killing, slaughtering, destruction and bombing will be our religious duty anywhere we invade.’

 

[Caledvwlch]

Then there's this:

Christians more supportive of torture than non-religious Americans

This came as precisely no surprise to me, having already seen the results played out in real time on this forum.

Sixty nine percent of white evangelicals believe the CIA treatment was justified, compared to just 20% who said it was not. (Those numbers, incidentally, roughly mirror the breakdown of Republican versus Democratic voters among white evangelicals.) A full three-quarters (75%) of white non-evangelical Protestants outnumber the 22% of their brethren in saying CIA treatment was justified. White Catholics believe the treatment was justified by a 66-23% margin.

But a majority of non-religious adults, 53%, believe the CIA actions were not justified, with 41% of the non-religious saying the treatment was justified.

This is not to gloat, by any means. The numbers in the non-religious category are still awful and depressing.

 

[musterion]

Then there's this:

Christians more supportive of torture than non-religious Americans

This came as precisely no surprise to me, having already seen the results played out in real time on this forum.



This is not to gloat, by any means. The numbers in the non-religious category are still awful and depressing.

Using hard means to get information from hard men is a practice that's been around as long as Mankind has fought wars. That a growing segment of Americans don't support it, if only as necessary to save lives, shows how many people actually despise their fellow citizens.

 

[Nick M]

I'm hoping that the above is just a typical example of Nick M's stand alone lunacy but for anyone who agrees with him then what was the 'Geneva Convention' about along with prosecutions for those convicted of war atrocities?

Go to hell you demon possessed pervert. Only a demented turd like you would say they are rules to how bombs are dropped.