Tygaland
-
Posts
4,820 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by Tygaland
-
-
With normal enemy combatants, yes. You capture them as prisoners of war and release them once the war is over.
That's what the Geneva Convention says.
No !@#$, Sherlock.
Bin Laden was accused of war crimes, so the normal thing to do would have been to treat him as a POW and then try him for war crimes.
I'm not aware of him being accused of war crimes. I am aware of him being accused of committing, planning and financing mass murder of civilians outside of what would be construed as war. So, no, he is not required to be taken as a PoW.
However... I'm not sure I wouldn't have done what the Americans did. There is a slippery slope argument to be made about assassination, but given that the US already has a history of political assassination, I'm not sure that sparing Bin Laden until the end of a trial would have made a difference there. He's an exceptional figure, and we're unlikely to see anyone like him come along again.
You, like many, ignore the likelihood that, had bin Laden been taken alive, aid workers and other Westerners in the Middle East would be taken hostage as leverage to get bin Laden released. How many innocent people being tortured and beheaded would be enough for you to consider the killing of bin Laden the better option? Or does your desire to feel good about yourself outweigh the future suffering of people as outlined?
It has nothing to do with the US history of assassinations. It has to do with taking down a vile, murderous thug (not an "exceptional person") in a manner which will prevent him using the court system as a pulpit to preach more bile and also remove the likelihood of innocent Westerners in the Middle East becoming removed from their own heads in the process.
You may find bin Laden exceptional, I certainly don't.
-
That's basically what the Green party is like all over the world. The one here in Australia is probably just as bad, but they do have really smart politicians that know how to sway public opinion, so they got quite a few seats in the senate.
I see the Australian left getting creamed in the next election just as bad as the Liberals in this Canadian election.
Also, I'd dispute the assertion that the Greens in Australia have "smart politicians who know how to sway public opinion". The only reason the Greens get seats in the senate is because people vote for them as a protest against the major parties with no clue as to their policies. Only in the past months, since they helped the Labor Party for a minority government, have the Greens policies been held up to the light and their numbers are on the decline.
The only reason the Greens won a lower house seat for the first time was because of Liberal Party preferences as for some reason they preferred the Greens winning the seat over Labor. Next election the Greens will be preferenced last and will be annihilated.
-
-snip-
Tyga nice try but Art. 4 - Prisoners of war, has nothing to do with what you're arguing about which is Art. 3 - Conflicts not of an international character.
Google it as even the supreme court says that Art. 3 covers this war, but i guess you know more than the judges who know and understand international laws
You are trying to tell me that when bin Laden was discovered the PoW clause is not activated? It is the entire topic. Under that clause he does not qualify as a PoW and therefore his shooting was entirely legal and justified.
You cannot ignore things because it doesn't fit your mantra, As for the supreme court, the US supreme court also determined carbon dioxide was a pollutant.
-
And Tyga the Geneva conventions does cover the war with Al Qaeda and both should follow those rules; look at Common Article 3...
No, it doesn't. It applies only to wars between two or more sovereign states. The US is a nation state, they were declared on by bin Laden who leads Al Qaeda which is not a nation state.
It also expands further, in Article 4 to describe combatants are required to do in order to be covered by the PoW aspect of the Geneva Convention. They are:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
© That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
At a stretch you can say Al Qaeda met the first requirement, although it is fairly vague but they definitely fail on the last three.
That you acknowledge that Al Qaeda do not follow the laws and customs of war is an admission by your own words that bin Laden was not required to be treated as per the Geneva Convention. This is ignoring the fact that knowledge of what happened at the time he was killed is still largely speculative.
He was the leader of a group that regularly hid amongst and killed civilians. He was the leader of a group that war no uniform and carried no identifying sign. He was the leader of a group that hid their weapons from view when attacking civilian targets. He was a leader that was inside a compound surrounded by armed guards who fired on troops when they stormed the compound.
How you can possibly argue that, one, the troops involved in the operation were not within their rights to kill bin Laden when confronted by him and, two, that the US are required to treat Al Qaeda as a sovereign state with all the trimmings that come with it when they are clearly not a sovereign state is mindboggling.
-
That's basically what the Green party is like all over the world. The one here in Australia is probably just as bad, but they do have really smart politicians that know how to sway public opinion, so they got quite a few seats in the senate.
I see the Australian left getting creamed in the next election just as bad as the Liberals in this Canadian election.
We can only hope.
-
It's not a matter of morals, it's class. I find it classless to publicly celebrate when you kill someone. I don't care if you do it in your head, but it really is unbecoming-as-hell of someone if you're literally throwing parties.
I don't think the people who celebrated publicly killed bin Laden. They were celebrating what his demise represented. That being some closure on the 9/11 attacks. You may find it classless but I find it to be a normal reaction to such an event.
-
Since when was Al Qaeda, or any other terrorist group considered a nation?
They don't play by any "rules", and so they don't get treated with the level of consideration that soliders and civilians get in more formalised conflicts.
I disagree with Xiphosis though, I think it is mostly a human thing to take joy in killing. Animals don't act that way.
That is the problem, The Rebel expects there to be a two-tiered set of rules for warfare. One that applies to Al Qaeda and one that applies to the US and any other Western nation that finds itself in combat against Al Qaeda.
For the purposes of treatment of their fighters, The Rebel expects those fighters to be treated as though they fight for a sovereign state and therefore says that the US is obliged to treat them as per the Geneva Convention which covers wars between sovereign states.
On the other hand he does not expect Al Qaeda to treat their enemies as per the Geneva Convention as he now classifies Al Qaeda as not a sovereign state to support his argument. The result of this is a belief that the US and Western nations in general are to engage Al Qaeda in conflict hamstrung by rules that he believes Al Qaeda have no requirement to abide by in the same conflict.
Complete nonsense.
As far as animals enjoying killing, I have seen cats toy with their prey before killing them and leaving what's left on the doorstep as a trophy. I don't think the people celebrating the death of bin Laden were taking joy in killing but celebrating what the death of bin Laden symbolises for the nation and more specifically for the people who lost friends, relatives and/or work colleagues in attacks planned and sponsored by bin Laden.
A significant difference, in my opinion and therefore a completely understandable and justified reaction. For that matter, I don't think many humans take joy in killing otherwise we'd be living in a very different society.
-
He deserved the same "justice" he gave his victims.
He was probably treated with much more dignity than many of his victims. I can't recall any of the people who were beheaded by his goons having their body treated according to Christian or Jewish religious traditions. Unless leaving the headless corpse in a street somewhere is the Christian and Jewish tradition.
-
If i remember correctly Bin Laden declared a jihad or "holy war" (which the west term it as) against the US, now only those that head of/or lead a religion can declare holy wars.
Look at history find one war which involved a country/state declaring war on a group of civilians/terrorists? there is none apart from this one what Bush catchphased this global crack down on terrorism as.
I'm arguing the wrongly used term of war here, because if fighting a terrorist organisation was classed as a war then the british would of flattened the Republic of Ireland over 40 years ago for habouring terrorists, since it isnt classed as war it didnt happen.
But ok if you're so convinced that this really is a war then the Geneva convention applies and those special forces that shot an unarmed "combatant" dead should be tried for war crimes.
You cant have it both ways Tyga its either a global crack down on terrorist organistions where they should be arrested where possible and put on trial for crimes or its a war where international rules of warfare have to be followed.
You are so mired in semantics because the reality of the world does not fit with your mindset.
bin Laden declared war on the US as leader of Al Qaeda. It doesn't matter two knobs of goat crap whether he had the religious authority to do it, he did it. He also planned and funded attacks on US citizens to follow that declaration up.
The Geneva Convention, as far as I'm aware, only applies to wars between sovereign states. Al Qaeda is not a sovereign state but is still a body that has declared war on the US outside of the Geneva Convention. There are various other aspects of the Geneva Convention that put Al Qaeda outside of it but that example alone is sufficient to knock that argument on the head.
bin Laden was the leader of a terrorist group that declared openly and followed through their declaration of war on the US. The US was not obliged to take him prisoner, nor put him on trial. They were within their rights to kill him where they found him, which they did.
Your attempts to apply two options in such a black and white manner shows you really are not interested in thinking about the situation. You hate the US and have made that clear to me on a few occasions so will believe anything that will back that mindset. To do that, you have to argue semantics and apply moral equivalence.
By your words any soverign state who is attacked by a group that is not a sovereign state has no right nor power to defend itself and/or kill those attacking it.
As for examples of sovereign states attacking terrorist groups. Israel has attacked Hezbollah and Hamas in reaction those groups' declarations of war against Israel. If I recall correctly, you don't believe Israel has a right to defend itself either.
-
Why does an enemy combatant deserve a trial in war? Utter nonsense. Are we to try and capture alive every enemy combatant during war and take them home for a trial before our courts?
Secondly, I may be the only one here who feels this way, but there is a massive difference between celebrating the death of a man who planned and financed the deaths of thousands of innocents and celebrating the murder of those innocents by bin Laden as occurred throughout the Islamic world.
The moral equivalence applied by people these days is breathtaking.
And, The Rebel, if I'm not mistaken, bin Laden himself declared war on the US as leader of Al Qaeda. So, you can hide behind your semantics all you like but bin Laden made the call and now he gets the consequences.
Had bin Laden been taken alive it would have triggered abductions and executions of Westerners throughout the Middle East to try and extort bin Laden's freedom. Not to mention giving him a pulpit to preach from as he dragged his case through the courts for years.
I'm sure you'd be fine with that as it is more about you feeling good about yourself than the cold, hard reality that your feel-good nonsense would bring.
-
The Greens in most countries care nothing for democracy, they are totalitarians wearing panda suits. This sort of ranting should not come as a surprise to anyone who has looked closely at Green parties.
-
Moridin nailed it. The illusion that there are people or alliances here pushing "moralism" is nonsense. "Moralism" is a cover-all for anyone who disagrees with whatever crap a group is trying to pull at any particular stage. The ones making all the noise about "moralism" are the ones who claim they despise it. It is a shadow created for them to box. Don't like what someone says about your latest war? Label them a pesky moralist and instantly they are discredited in the eyes of the peanut gallery as someone akin to the nosy old lady next-door who tells you to turn your music down all the time. Prudish, old hag!
The facts of the matter are that every alliance and bloc in this game has their own opinion on what is "right" and "wrong". We all have morals, what those morals espouse is what differs. You need only look at the ODN-CoJ nonsense for an example. CoJ consider an alliance aiding an alliance they are at war with as an act of war, a "moral" opinion that has been the norm in the Cyberverse for as long as I care to remember. ODN believe that CoJ telling their protectorate of this is a "threat" worthy of special punishment in their peace terms. That is ODN's "moral" stand on the situation. Who is "right" and who is "wrong"? Depends on whose side you are on, I guess. For me, I have no link to either party but I can guarantee my opinion would be dismissed as "moralism" regardless.
During Karma, MK and friends were at the forefront of the Karma revolution. Bringing a fairer, dare I say nicer, world but deposing the NPO and their allies. This is probably the only real example of a war fought on a truly "moral" platform. Yet, those at the forefront then are the ones bleating loudest about the "filthy moralists". Laughable.
My suggestion to the owner of this blog is to move away from the big jug of Kool-Aid and get some fresh air. The thoroughbred you thought you bought is a mule.
-
Sorry to hear this, Alfred. The depths some will plumb in this game is never much of a surprise to me, unfortunately. Best of luck post-CN and I hope the morons involved give you peace now they have succeeded in what they were trying to achieve.
The more I see of the new "golden age of CN", the more I despise it.
-
I don't know tyga, but I'm guessing he would not be ~down with this no-cb coalition~
I know him quite well and would agree with you. The whole "here is what we want to do now how can we justify it" business isn't really my thing.
-
I have made a suggestion that is pending approval for discussion in the Suggestion Box.
-
How history judges the validity of a CB depends on if you win the war.
And I have also noticed since the last big war that most of the major alliances appear to be dead scared of being seen to be "immoral" since this might bring a curbstomp along.
I don't think morality has much to do with it really. More accurately it is acceptance by allies and their allies. When a war escalates you need to know your allies are on-side when you need them and most alliances will be reluctant to take part in an offensive without a good reason because win or lose, war in this day and age is devastating to nations. The winners just get damaged less.
If damages were less overall and recoveries faster then I'm sure alliances would be less reluctant to go to war without a water-tight casus belli.
-
Clearly it isn't what the hive wants as a lot of the bees have decided to leave the hive permanently due to boredom. The bees are always buzzing about boredom and the need for drama but very, very few of the bees want to put their part of the hive in jeopardy in order to create the desired drama.
I can understand the reluctance as many bees have worked feverishly on their part of the hive and they do not wish to see their part of the hive utterly ruined for the entertainment of other, more timid bees. Which is why I have been looking at ways to make war more interesting and less destructive overall.
The need for a CB is, of course, something that has evolved in the Cyberverse. It has its positives and negatives but it becomes farcical when people sit around trying to conjure up a CB for an alliance they all want to attack anyway. They obviously feel affronted by that alliance enough to contemplate war or threatened by the alliance enough to contemplate war so I don't really see the need for a fake or planted CB or how such a process makes the war more legitimate.
-
Oh no, I didn't get that impression at all. I don't even like the present set of social norms I merely understand the fuss over it. The reason it's come about is people holding preference over defense to offense because of the assumption that the defender might be an innocent thus should be protected. A way to challenge the notion of the defender being an innocent thus not worthy of outside aid is to charge that they've wrong another party some how in a manner others can get behind. What wrong others may rally behind will again, depend on social norms.
Would the reasons why a reasonable number of alliances were contemplating war with another alliance not represent a significant enough "wrong" to justify a war, especially to the alliances planning the attack? My point being that even when we get a group of alliances together with a mutual dislike of another alliance it is not deemed "enough" to warrant or justify a war. There are two reasons for that. One being the social requirement to provide evidence of wrongdoing acceptable to the opposing side (which is in itself ludicrous) and the other being the risk/gain assessment by those planning to start a war.
I think if the risk is somehow reduced (I have proposed a change in the Suggestion Box that is pending approval for publication that addresses this) then the need for a casus belli will be somewhat reduced and people will be more inclined to stand up for themselves or for their principles which will make the game more interesting politically and militarily.
Ideological differences are reasons for war in RL, I fail to see why they cannot be in the Cyberverse.
-
I also think you misunderstand my aim here. My aim is not to ridicule those in Sardonic's log dump (although I guess I can see how people may see it that way), it was to ridicule the system of social norms in the Cyberverse that push people to do what the people in those logs were doing.
-
Going in kamikaze style in this case not only wouldn't have achieved what those planning had hoped but also would have solidified the other sides position by removing themselves as factors in future disputes. Thus it is possible to believe in something and not emphasis the points you believe in while trying to have your side appeal to others. This isn't to say I condone the manner in which they went about it but I think you too readily jumped to that statement.
Edit: hopped != hoped
Do you believe contriving a CB would have made any difference? This is really my point. If you do not believe your real reason for war is reason enough for war then why bother contorting yourselves to generate something fake but more "reasonable"? Everyone who was considering war was in on it plot so how does it change the motivation for war at all?
-
I've always thought that when all else fails, you could always fabricate something.
Only two people would know that it wasn't true, but with CBs, only two people generally know that it is true, and there would be little difference in the discussion over the CB regardless of it was factual or manufactured.
Exactly. Fabrication is no better than creating a situation to get a more "credible" CB, in my opinion.
-
Well, the folks involved in the planning had something of a healthy fear of the aftermath of them taking a stand and failing.
Respect is good and all, but it doesn't help you advance much politically when you're under the jackboot of those that you declared war against openly.
Then they obviously did not believe in what they were doing.
-
We basically saw TOP/IRON do that in BiPolar and it didn't exactly work out well for them. That being said, I agree with the post, and I'm rather dissapointed that the war didn't go down. Not so much because I want to see GOONS destroyed, but because it would be good to see someone willing to roll tanks for what they believed in
Well, I'm not saying it'd guarantee success. I'm saying I'd respect alliance more if they went to war for the real reason they feel war is warranted rather than jumping through silly hoops to convince everyone else they have a legitimate reason to go to war. I'd rather lose a war standing for something than win one over nonsense.
-
Which gets me back to the contrived CB. If they did not really want to fight then why bother with the gymnastics to try and create a reason for a war they don't really want to fight?
The 'C' word
in Dajobo's Blog
A blog by Dajobo in General
Posted
Best of luck, Dajobo. Wishing you a speedy recovery!