Confidemus Posted September 30, 2014 Author Share Posted September 30, 2014 The mere fact that wars have civilian casualties doesn't mean that it's a "war crime". Like, seriously, we have a comprehensive network of war ethics underpinning international law for a reason. Still with the international law? Does this law state it's perfectly ok to kill women and kids as long as some nasty brown men we don't like get it as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Where were all these international laws a few years ago when the US were involved in covert operations to destabilise democratically elected governments in central and South America? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ya Bezzer! Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 This is one time I'm pleased we are intervening. Its absolutely the right thing to be doing this time. Probably the one and only time I will agree with Reynard. I was against intervention in Afghanistan. I was against intervention in Iraq. I was against intervention in Libya. But I am pro intervention against IS. IS is a completely different kind of threat from anything else we have had to deal with since 9/11. It's an expansive state based organisation that is actively trying to overthrow other states while committing persecution and extermination campaigns against all other religions, creeds and minorities who they consider as heretics fit only to be mass murdered. They have murdered western hostages, regularly commit massacres and mutilation of prisoners of war and kills any individual under their control who doesn't convert to their own brand of violent extremist Islam. If we don't intervene here, when do we? People often mention "Hitler" or "the Nazis" to prop up stupid arguments but I honestly think there are real parallels between Islamic State and German fascism. It's a sort of hellbent death cult that cannot be negotiated with or stopped by any other means than violence. If anything we aren't doing enough and I think it would be catastrophic to allow IS to gain any more territory, followers, revenue, weapons or anything else that would aid them. I'm a pacifist 9 times out of 10 but here we have an enemy that absolutely must be eradicated at all costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 The folly here is to assume that dropping bombs is somehow going to stop radical islamists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 International Law does not exist when the major players decide so.... That's the way it's always been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ya Bezzer! Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 The folly here is to assume that dropping bombs is somehow going to stop radical islamists. It's quite simple. Iraq, or at least Baghdad and the Kurdish areas will fall without our intervention just as Syria would have completely gone without the help of Russia and Iran. So what do you want to happen? Would you rather IS controlled all of Syria and Iraq, mass executed thousands more prisoners and persecuted the Shiites, Kurds and other minorities? There is no nice clean way of dealing with this. We just have to roll up our sleeves and get dirty. And I'm well aware past mistakes by the West, unforgivably mistakes I was constantly opposed to, contributed to this but this is the situation now and it must be dealt with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 When a nation invades another nation's borders, without seeking or obtaining their permission and then proceeds to kill citizens of this nation then I think that this constitutes a crime even in your made up world of international law. Just to clarify, America deciding that it doesn't like some Pakistan citizens and killing them (and anyone who happens to be around them at one point in time) is not a war. You are confusing two separate issues. War crimes have nothing to do with whether or not you are operating militarily in the territory of another soveriegn state. That is a crime against peace, not a war crime. Killing citizens is not itself a war crime. Like, we have standards about intentions, due care, and reasonable doubt in ascertaining whether the death of civilians in a particular instance amounts to a war crime. The line between who is a civilian and who is a combatant is also notoriously difficult a distinction to draw, especially when you aren't dealing with conventional combatants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Where were all these international laws a few years ago when the US were involved in covert operations to destabilise democratically elected governments in central and South America? The very definition of whataboutery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 The very definition of whataboutery. Christ, how often do you you this same shit you speccy wee coward? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 You are confusing two separate issues. War crimes have nothing to do with whether or not you are operating militarily in the territory of another soveriegn state. That is a crime against peace, not a war crime. Killing citizens is not itself a war crime. Like, we have standards about intentions, due care, and reasonable doubt in ascertaining whether the death of civilians in a particular instance amounts to a war crime. The line between who is a civilian and who is a combatant is also notoriously difficult a distinction to draw, especially when you aren't dealing with conventional combatants. Murder is a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Without doubt governments should be looking out for their service personnel. They could start by ceasing to project their power into areas that really don't appreciate it. That the western world think we have amoral right to interfere in the lives of people, many of whom do not share the western ideals, is arrogant in the extreme. BTW, I am not saying that this is the case in Iraq at the moment but we cannot contnue to meddle in the politics of the middle east and try and turn it into some sandy version of continental europe. We do have a moral right, indeed a moral imperative, to intervene and to impose our moral standards against the indiscriminate, deliberate oppression and slaughter of an entire people by a theocratic paramilitary. Our morals are superior to theirs. In every respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Christ, how often do you you this same shit you speccy wee coward? Wow. Ad hominem. Desperate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Murder is a crime. Not all killing is murder. Not all deliberate killing is murder. And, most importantly, but most blatantly obviously, not all murders are war crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Not all killing is murder. Not all deliberate killing is murder. And, most importantly, but most blatantly obviously, not all murders are war crimes. In the example I gave, it is murder. Whilst you continually refer to war crimes, again the example I gave in no way could be considered a war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 In the example I gave, it is murder. Whilst you continually refer to war crimes, again the example I gave in no way could be considered a war. Drone strikes that happen to kill civilians are not necessarily murder. Something can be a war crime without involving, per se, a war. It is to do with whether the perpetrator is a combatant or a civilian whether or not the international law of war crimes is engaged rather than domestic law of unlawful killing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Drone strikes that happen to kill civilians are not necessarily murder. Something can be a war crime without involving, per se, a war. It is to do with whether the perpetrator is a combatant or a civilian whether or not the international law of war crimes is engaged rather than domestic law of unlawful killing. I beg to differ. A drone strike inside another country that kill civilians is by an reasonable definition a crime. In fact it is possibly multiple crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heedthebaa Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Pmsl I'm loving Confi being blown away by Ad Lib here, and with that senile, bitter auld c**t GD getting even angrier, a thoroughly good read, bravo ???????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 I beg to differ. A drone strike inside another country that kill civilians is by an reasonable definition a crime. In fact it is possibly multiple crimes. Whether it is a crime is a different question from whether it is 1) a war crime or 2) a murder. Stop playing fast and loose with things that mean different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 We do have a moral right, indeed a moral imperative, to intervene and to impose our moral standards against the indiscriminate, deliberate oppression and slaughter of an entire people by a theocratic paramilitary. Our morals are superior to theirs. In every respect. Since when were morals quantitative rather than qualitative? "Our" morals are "superior" from your perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Since when were morals quantitative rather than qualitative? "Our" morals are "superior" from your perspective. Something can be qualitatively superior, champ. The morals of Western states are objectively superior to those of Islamic State in the same way as the football at the Nou Camp is objectively better than that at Petershill or Garscube. A moral system which abhors genocide is clearly not just better than one that sanctions it "cause that's just like your opinion maaan". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.