If 'all is fair', how do we even decide what war is then? I mean, it's not up to the U.S., or even the U.N. at this point. You're going to try and hide behind semantics, but it's not going to work. You can try and give a definition for what is legitimate warfare and what isn't, but based on your previous comments I think your definition of 'war' will be about as useful as you feel the Geneva Conventions are.
If 'all is fair', how do we even decide what war is then? I mean, it's not up to the U.S., or even the U.N. at this point. You're going to try and hide behind semantics, but it's not going to work. You can try and give a definition for what is legitimate warfare and what isn't, but based on your previous comments I think your definition of 'war' will be about as useful as you feel the Geneva Conventions are.
Semantics shouldn't be an issue. It was a terrorist act. You are the one hiding behind semantics.
The word 'war' is definitely one that can be used in many different ways, I'll grant you that, but flying two airliners into the World Trade Centre was a reprehensible act of terrorism.
If it makes you feel better, you can call it 'cotton candy' and begin your own quest to change the semantics of fairground food.
I'm definitely discounting Osama's declaration of war against the US (and western culture in general) as the rantings of a madman. If it was a war he wanted, then a war he got.
At no point did I say the the Geneva Convention was useless, so I'm inclined to discount much of what you say based on your inability to comprehend. One ad hominem attack deserves another, and that's certainly fair.
At no point did I say the the Geneva Convention was useless...
Well, either you believe in the Geneva Convention or you believe that 'all is fair in love and war'. Make up your mind and I'll respect either answer.
If you do believe in the Geneva Convention, then you don't believe that 'all is fair in love and war'. If you don't believe in the Geneva Convention, then your opinion of what is legally a war or not is irrelevant to this discussion, thus, flying two planes into sky scrapers is all fair war.
SDW, about your view on not giving "terrorists" same rights as other humans...do you really beleive that? Aren't they humans?
And this whole idea about "legitimate" and "illegitmate" attackers and their rights. How do you walk that line? How does one go from "worthy of human rights" to "not worthy"? Where's that line folks?
Well, either you believe in the Geneva Convention or you believe that 'all is fair in love and war'. Make up your mind and I'll respect either answer.
If you do believe in the Geneva Convention, then you don't believe that 'all is fair in love and war'. If you don't believe in the Geneva Convention, then your opinion of what is legally a war or not is irrelevant to this discussion, thus, flying two planes into sky scrapers is all fair war.
Oh please, Bunge. Do you actually read the thread before you post? Your ability to inject spurious arguments into a discussion is remarkable, and likely a good indicator that you don't.
The weight I give the Geneva Convention has no bearing on whether this is a war or not. And even if it was, I'd still have to figure out your semantic twist on the word 'war'.
As I've said in a couple of earlier posts, and repeated here again for your benefit, I would hope that the Coalition forces would take the moral high-ground. I think that's some indication of my thoughts on it.
I'm not an expert, and my caution against adhering to the Geneva Convention versus employing similar tactics to the Iraqi's is based on a hope that we would not have to stoop to that level.
I'm not going to fool myself, though. Humane treatment of any prisoners, on our side and theirs, would be ideal. That isn't going to happen, and has already been demonstrated by Iraq.
The psychological gains will be the overriding factor in determining how people are treated. What helps us more ... chocolate bars, or a graphic display. What helps them more?
Look, honestly, I'm with Groverat on this one. I don't agree with his presentation, but the old saying that 'all is
fair in love and war' fits.
Does that include the use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons? Napalm? The bombing of hospitals, schools, water treatment and sewage facilities?
Does that include the use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons? Napalm? The bombing of hospitals, schools, water treatment and sewage facilities?
I someone already ask him that question (actually me) and he did answer it.
Anyone call my name? no? well, just wanted to pop by and tell you that the regular taliban forces, by the US State department's own definition definition of the word, don't qualify as "terrorists".
Most of them probably knew as much about 9/11 in front as we did. They might be "mercenaries" of a fundamentalist regime. But most of them have committed no terrorist act, and most likely known zip about them.
Groverat, there certainly is a difference, I agree with you completely, but the thing is the Turks now have the defence of precedent and are certainly canny enough to use it deliberately.
Sometimes I have to wonder about people like you. It's like you think that this thing can be solved in federal court. These people shouldn't be tortured, I agree. But, should they be given the same rights you and I have under the US Constitution? No. Do you think that if they captured Americans that they would treat THEM under the convention? No.
So, in other words, let's not be better than they are.
Why would I base my response to those things on the Geneva Convention?
Did you realize that humans lived and breathed *before* the Geneva Conventions were made? Did you know that the things listed in the Geneva Conventions were put there because humans reacted negatively to them BEFORE drafting the conventions?
HOW ON EARTH DOES ANYONE FEEL OR THINK WITHOUT INTERNATIONAL LAW TO GUIDE THEM!?
I have been doing research in the history of the concept of PLAY.
Many theorists find that the notion of play is at the root of civilization: they see it as a set of actions that differ from the ordinary
that has a ritualized air about it
that is without a pragmatic end purpose in mind
and is governed by rules
very often Play takes the form of competition, Agon and struggle
The history shows that in most archaic cultures warfare was ritualized PLAY:
these historian/theorists show that the "play element" which was endemic to military cultures (Greek, Japanese, Medieval Europe (chivalry)) and took the form of codes of honor and virtues (virtues from the same root as virility)
according to these theorists it is the codes of honor that have developed from the honorable sense of PLAY that lead to the developement of International Laws that govern warfare
Consequently: a person isn't "playing faire" if they don't adhere to the Geneva Convention
Comments
Originally posted by audiopollution
That's not war. Try again.
Didn't Osama declare war on the West?
If 'all is fair', how do we even decide what war is then? I mean, it's not up to the U.S., or even the U.N. at this point. You're going to try and hide behind semantics, but it's not going to work. You can try and give a definition for what is legitimate warfare and what isn't, but based on your previous comments I think your definition of 'war' will be about as useful as you feel the Geneva Conventions are.
That's an excellent point you bring up about the Kurds. Hadn't thought of it quite like that.
Originally posted by bunge
Didn't Osama declare war on the West?
If 'all is fair', how do we even decide what war is then? I mean, it's not up to the U.S., or even the U.N. at this point. You're going to try and hide behind semantics, but it's not going to work. You can try and give a definition for what is legitimate warfare and what isn't, but based on your previous comments I think your definition of 'war' will be about as useful as you feel the Geneva Conventions are.
Semantics shouldn't be an issue. It was a terrorist act. You are the one hiding behind semantics.
The word 'war' is definitely one that can be used in many different ways, I'll grant you that, but flying two airliners into the World Trade Centre was a reprehensible act of terrorism.
If it makes you feel better, you can call it 'cotton candy' and begin your own quest to change the semantics of fairground food.
I'm definitely discounting Osama's declaration of war against the US (and western culture in general) as the rantings of a madman. If it was a war he wanted, then a war he got.
At no point did I say the the Geneva Convention was useless, so I'm inclined to discount much of what you say based on your inability to comprehend. One ad hominem attack deserves another, and that's certainly fair.
Originally posted by trick fall
Hassan, I'm actually in agreement with you that's why I was asking the rat.
That's an excellent point you bring up about the Kurds. Hadn't thought of it quite like that.
Hooray!
Originally posted by audiopollution
At no point did I say the the Geneva Convention was useless...
Well, either you believe in the Geneva Convention or you believe that 'all is fair in love and war'. Make up your mind and I'll respect either answer.
If you do believe in the Geneva Convention, then you don't believe that 'all is fair in love and war'. If you don't believe in the Geneva Convention, then your opinion of what is legally a war or not is irrelevant to this discussion, thus, flying two planes into sky scrapers is all fair war.
And this whole idea about "legitimate" and "illegitmate" attackers and their rights. How do you walk that line? How does one go from "worthy of human rights" to "not worthy"? Where's that line folks?
Originally posted by bunge
Well, either you believe in the Geneva Convention or you believe that 'all is fair in love and war'. Make up your mind and I'll respect either answer.
If you do believe in the Geneva Convention, then you don't believe that 'all is fair in love and war'. If you don't believe in the Geneva Convention, then your opinion of what is legally a war or not is irrelevant to this discussion, thus, flying two planes into sky scrapers is all fair war.
Oh please, Bunge. Do you actually read the thread before you post? Your ability to inject spurious arguments into a discussion is remarkable, and likely a good indicator that you don't.
The weight I give the Geneva Convention has no bearing on whether this is a war or not. And even if it was, I'd still have to figure out your semantic twist on the word 'war'.
As I've said in a couple of earlier posts, and repeated here again for your benefit, I would hope that the Coalition forces would take the moral high-ground. I think that's some indication of my thoughts on it.
I'm not an expert, and my caution against adhering to the Geneva Convention versus employing similar tactics to the Iraqi's is based on a hope that we would not have to stoop to that level.
I'm not going to fool myself, though. Humane treatment of any prisoners, on our side and theirs, would be ideal. That isn't going to happen, and has already been demonstrated by Iraq.
The psychological gains will be the overriding factor in determining how people are treated. What helps us more ... chocolate bars, or a graphic display. What helps them more?
Look, honestly, I'm with Groverat on this one. I don't agree with his presentation, but the old saying that 'all is
fair in love and war' fits.
Does that include the use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons? Napalm? The bombing of hospitals, schools, water treatment and sewage facilities?
Originally posted by sammi jo
Does that include the use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons? Napalm? The bombing of hospitals, schools, water treatment and sewage facilities?
I someone already ask him that question (actually me) and he did answer it.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
NNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!
Anyone call my name? no? well, just wanted to pop by and tell you that the regular taliban forces, by the US State department's own definition definition of the word, don't qualify as "terrorists".
Most of them probably knew as much about 9/11 in front as we did. They might be "mercenaries" of a fundamentalist regime. But most of them have committed no terrorist act, and most likely known zip about them.
If say the Kurds took up arms against Saddam would they be terrorists?
Depends on how they do it and how we want to look at them.
audiopollution:
I'm not saying "all is fair in love and war." Please don't paraphrase my points for me. Thanks.
Hassan:
Er... how, exactly, can George Bush object? He set the precedent.
Haven't Turkish forces been in Kurdistan for the last 12 years? Don't the Turks have designs on taking the land?
There is a difference.
That's the can o' worms opened here.
Originally posted by groverat
audiopollution:
I'm not saying "all is fair in love and war." Please don't paraphrase my points for me. Thanks.
I didn't paraphrase your points. That was my point. Perhaps it should have been made more clearly.
Originally posted by NoahJ
It is not the same thing, no matter how you or them try to twist it.
He didn't say it was, or that they believe it is. That is irrelevant.
Depends on how they do it and how we want to look at them
Who's we? The gov't? The peeps? The UN? Who gets to decide?
Originally posted by SDW2001
So, in other words, let's not be better than they are.
So, in other words, let's not be better than they are.
actually, it's more "we're better than they are so we can complain about them until they reach our level"
Originally posted by groverat
Why would I base my response to those things on the Geneva Convention?
Did you realize that humans lived and breathed *before* the Geneva Conventions were made? Did you know that the things listed in the Geneva Conventions were put there because humans reacted negatively to them BEFORE drafting the conventions?
HOW ON EARTH DOES ANYONE FEEL OR THINK WITHOUT INTERNATIONAL LAW TO GUIDE THEM!?
I have been doing research in the history of the concept of PLAY.
Many theorists find that the notion of play is at the root of civilization: they see it as a set of actions that differ from the ordinary
that has a ritualized air about it
that is without a pragmatic end purpose in mind
and is governed by rules
very often Play takes the form of competition, Agon and struggle
The history shows that in most archaic cultures warfare was ritualized PLAY:
these historian/theorists show that the "play element" which was endemic to military cultures (Greek, Japanese, Medieval Europe (chivalry)) and took the form of codes of honor and virtues (virtues from the same root as virility)
according to these theorists it is the codes of honor that have developed from the honorable sense of PLAY that lead to the developement of International Laws that govern warfare
Consequently: a person isn't "playing faire" if they don't adhere to the Geneva Convention
and also
to do so means that you are merely Playing a Game
is this war merely a form of Play?!?!?