There Are No Rules In War?

[Morpheus]

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

Well since rules guiding how warfare is to be regulated (actually in these cases those "rules" actually = "laws". So I guess that all your rantings about "rule of law" only apply when you don't disagree with the laws? Strange...I was always of the belief that rule of law was considered true in order to eliminate rule of opinion.

 

[Morpheus]

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.

Wasn't one of the reasons for the writing of the Geneva Conventions the use of musterion gas?

 

[annabenedetti]

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

Another stellar example of Nick's projectile vomiting.

 

[rexlunae]

IF countries do not sign the Geneva Convention they are not held to its standards.

That's not necessarily true. Slobodan Milošević was charged with war crimes under the conventions despite the fact that his actions occurred well before Serbia ratified them.

International law evolves very slowly, and it isn't totally settled where these conventions do apply, but you can't assume that states that don't ratify them aren't bound to honor them. And the US has ratified them, so the objection wouldn't apply anyway.

From a practical perspective, since any charges would have to go the security council, it's very unlikely that there would be UN action against US officials. But theoretically there could be, if the current administration chooses to forego the veto.

Now if you are saying that war crimes can be charged against persons, that is another subject.

Well, of course they can. Supra.

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?

Members of Congress don't generally have a command responsibility. They have oversight, and this report is actually a part of their oversight powers. Additionally, they had duties to keep confidential any controlled information that they were given access to, so it isn't clear what they could have done without breaking other laws.

 

[chrysostom]

you want me on that wall
you need me on that wall
but
you don't want to know what I do on that wall

you can't handle the truth

 

[rexlunae]

you want me on that wall
you need me on that wall
but
you don't want to know what I do on that wall

you can't handle the truth

Maybe we should just try to "handle to truth".

 

[WizardofOz]

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.

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

And there it is :hammer:

So tell us, oh wise one...can US soldiers intentionally shoot civilians?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I know that liberals like Art Brain and his Libertarian ally WizardofOz can't relate to the following, as they've never stood up for anything decent in their lives, let along fought for it, but there is one very important rule of war:

Defeat the enemy.

 

[Morpheus]

you want me on that wall
you need me on that wall
but
you don't want to know what I do on that wall

you can't handle the truth

So now we know the truth...Chrysostom is really Humpty Dumpty. He really is cracked beyond repair.

 

[WizardofOz]

I know that liberals like Art Brain and his Libertarian ally WizardofOz can't relate to the following, as they've never stood up for anything decent in their lives, let along fought for it, but

:blabla:

Once we move beyond your bluster, you don't really say much...

there is one very important rule of war:

Defeat the enemy.

At all costs? Here is the same question to you that I'm hoping Nick "m" will address: can US soldiers intentionally kill civilians?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

So tell us, oh wise one...can US soldiers intentionally shoot civilians?

One must remember Aaron that these barbarians (be it the Viet Cong that we fought in SE Asia decades ago or your beloved muzzies that we've been fighting off and on for thousands of years), don't play by the same rules that we as a nation that was founded upon Judeo-Christian doctrine do.

These filthy rag heads will tie bombs to a child and have him run over to a group of American GI's and then blow all of them up.

In the real world Aaron, sometimes US soldiers are forced to shoot what you call civilians, and what the enemy calls "8 year old soldiers".

 

[WizardofOz]

One must remember Aaron that these barbarians (be it the Viet Cong that we fought in SE Asia decades ago or your beloved muzzies that we've been fighting off and on for thousands of years), don't play by the same rules that we as a nation that was founded upon Judeo-Christian doctrine do.

These filthy rag heads will tie bombs to a child and have him run over to a group of American GI's and then blow all of them up.

In the real world Aaron, sometimes US soldiers are forced to shoot what you call civilians, and what the enemy calls "8 year old soldiers".

You agree with Nick when he says there are no rules in war? Our soldiers can kill, rape, pillage, etc with impunity?

You're dumber than I thought...

 

[aCultureWarrior]

You agree with Nick when he says there are no rules in war? Our soldiers can kill, rape, pillage, etc with impunity?

You're dumber than I thought...

If you're implying that Nick M., who is a devout Christian, states that it's ok to rape women and steal during a war, you're delusional.

Regarding killing: (thank you for not using "murder", as there is a huge difference) :

Yes Aaron, that's usually what war is all about: defeating (i.e. killing) the enemy.

 

[This Charming Manc]

I'll remember that.

I but there is one very important rule of war:

Defeat the enemy.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I'll remember that.

Every time I read one of your secular humanist posts I remind myself never to forget it either.

 

[chrysostom]

Maybe we should just try to "handle to truth".

reality is a big part of truth

have you a grip on that?

 

[musterion]

Wasn't one of the reasons for the writing of the Geneva Conventions the use of musterion gas?

That's stupid in more than one way.

 

[rexlunae]

reality is a big part of truth

have you a grip on that?

I believe so. You may choose to differ...

 

[This Charming Manc]

Its clearly implicit to view that there are no rules in law, which both you and Nick have argued for.

If you disagree with that you believe that there are rules in law, which is it?

I'm tempted to believe you want your rules in war, which means we can be vile and barbaric to 'evil rag heads' as you call them. Which says something about the vileness in your heart more than anything else.

If you're implying that Nick M., who is a devout Christian, states that it's ok to rape women and steal during a war, you're delusional.

Regarding killing: (thank you for not using "murder", as there is a huge difference) :

Yes Aaron, that's usually what war is all about: defeating (i.e. killing) the enemy.

 

[This Charming Manc]

Not a secular humanist just someone who believes that Christians should not be hateful, foul mouthed and vile as a standard position.

Every time I read one of your secular humanist posts I remind myself never to forget it either.