[J m HofMarN]

The Cobnuts: What in God's name are you talking about sir??

You indicate that anyone who holds a gun doesnt require the rights of the Geneva convention? That's what the Geneva convention was fucking for. It's to protect the rights of fighters and others during war.

And when you say that you can torture and indefinately imprison people who take up arms against your country you're parroting Bush's nonsense. Dozens of Muslims have been detained in the US and none of them fired a shot, but because they were SUSPECTED of being part of an enemy military force (snort, chortle) they can, by your logic and the scum sack in the white house, be denied basic human rights like Habeus Corpus.

By claiming that people who fight don't have human rights you strip human rights from anyone who becomes a foe of the government. The BPP, the Weathermen, the Communist party, all those organizations have had militant wings, and therefore by your logic any of their members could be arrested and tortured.

And when your country is being invaded, it's your civic duty to take up arms regardless of whether you're in a proper military, a militia, or you just have one laying about. So where do you draw the line? A farmer draws a weapon to defend his crops from encroaching US storm troopers and then they drag him off to have lightbulbs shoved up his ass? (as has happened, since our government is made up of blow hard kill them all lunatics such as yourself) Yeah, sure it makes you look like you're tough on terrorism that you'll attach car batteries to the genitals of anyone who's the wrong color, but it also GUARANTEES you'll lose your war, and makes you look like a flamin idiot.

You're once again trying to sound all bad ass while having no clue that your bluster is so flexible that it extends your frankly criminal disregard for human rights to anyone, anywhere.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 01 August 2007 - 11:05 PM

[Cobnat]

The Cobnuts: What in God's name are you talking about sir??

You indicate that anyone who holds a gun doesnt require the rights of the Geneva convention? That's what the Geneva convention was fucking for. It's to protect the rights of fighters and others during war.

And when you say that you can torture and indefinately imprison people who take up arms against your country you're parroting Bush's nonsense. Dozens of Muslims have been detained in the US and none of them fired a shot, but because they were SUSPECTED of being part of an enemy military force (snort, chortle) they can, by your logic and the scum sack in the white house, be denied basic human rights like Habeus Corpus.

By claiming that people who fight don't have human rights you strip human rights from anyone who becomes a foe of the government. The BPP, the Weathermen, the Communist party, all those organizations have had militant wings, and therefore by your logic any of their members could be arrested and tortured.

You're once again trying to sound all bad ass while having no clue that your bluster is so flexible that it extends your frankly criminal disregard for human rights to anyone, anywhere.

Well if you were conscripted into the army and Id assume you would be then you didn’t make the choice of being a soldier or not. So if you are conscripted then theoretically, you have rights. But if it’s a civil war or if you are fighting an occupier then you obviously have rights. My metaphor was more for those who choice to be soldiers knowing they will be sent half way across the world to fight a pointless war.

I neither condone nor condemn the use of torture on soldiers who had a choice of fighting or not.

[J m HofMarN]

Ah I see. So we can just torture people until they admit to joining Al Qaeda willingly, and then retroactively it'll be ok that we tortured them

For example, why not take a look at, I dunno, the person this thread is about?

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 01 August 2007 - 11:21 PM

[Bond]

My dear J m HofMarN, we put that subject behind us hours ago. Why do you have to be such an *ss?


EDIT: My apologies.

This post has been edited by Bond: 01 August 2007 - 11:16 PM

[J m HofMarN]

The reason for bringing it up, is that David Hicks was tortured until he admitted to joining Al Qaeda willingly, and thusly, by Cobnat's theorem, it was ok to torture him.

Just like how it was ok to torture Jews if they were plotting against Spain, and lo and behold a bunch of Jews admitted to plotting against Spain for some reason.

Are you seeing my problem here?

Also, in response to your query earlier on page 2, I suppose if I were leading the revolution I'd want to take over afterwards, since revolutions do not merely occur in the military sphere, indeed they principally take place after the combat ends.

If I were just participating in it and had to pick a future leader, I'd look to how they handled themselves in battle, who was more interested in ending the crimes of the former ruling class, and who had a real vision for what should come after the war for liberation.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 01 August 2007 - 11:27 PM

[Bond]

J m HofMarN, I'm sorry I got all pissy. Can we put that behind us?

Also, it seems that, what with the way you think, you probably would have done well during the American Revolution!

[J m HofMarN]

I'll call off my ninja death squad... THIS time.

And I hope I wouldn't have done well during the American revolution. Bunch of rich white men who wanted to get richer. Fucks. They conned the poor into joining their cause and what did the workers get? Taxes and more fucking taxes. See Shay's Rebellion or The Whiskey Rebellion, etc. Fuck the American revolution, that was what you call regime change.

[Cobnat]

Ah I see. So we can just torture people until they admit to joining Al Qaeda willingly, and then retroactively it'll be ok that we tortured them

"We". So you are saying that you are a member of the U.S Army and/or a member of the Coalition of the Willing? But lets concentrate on something else: Since the U.S Military does not enforce a draft and since Al Qaeda doesn’t enforce a draft we can assume that they are both full of volunteer and since they are, if a soldier from either side is captured, they are allowed to torture them.

Again, in fairness: Al Qaeda is using civilian hostages as a strategy. That is a war crime. Now obviously the U.S government has killed its fair share of civilians with “accidental” bombings but Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not angels either. Therefore I have decreed that if a soldier is captured from one side or the other, his captors can torture him if they please. I guess my decree is collective punishment against soldiers but since the individual soldiers who commit the crimes will never get tried for those crimes; its very reasonable.

The reason for bringing it up, is that David Hicks was tortured until he admitted to joining Al Qaeda willingly, and thusly, by Cobnat's theorem, it was ok to torture him.

Just like how it was ok to torture Jews if they were plotting against Spain, and lo and behold a bunch of Jews admitted to plotting against Spain for some reason.

Are you seeing my problem here?

Well first I would like to say that the Spanish government has been torturing people for decades into signing false confession, no international law or lack therefore of will change their behaviour. So in the end I doubt that my theory would change how governments behave (since they always find excuses) in the world at all.

If I were just participating in it and had to pick a future leader, I'd look to how they handled themselves in battle, who was more interested in ending the crimes of the former ruling class, and who had a real vision for what should come after the war for liberation.

Meh; all dictators end up the same way in the end. Hell. During the civil war in Uganda Idi Amin passed himself of as a General for the people, he showed military wit in most parts and promised to change the country so their would be more hospitals/infrastructure/schools/etc.

[J m HofMarN]

Therefore I have decreed that if a soldier is captured from one side or the other, his captors can torture him if they please.

So then they can torture anyone so long as the people admit to being Al Qaeda. Super.

Well first I would like to say that the Spanish government has been torturing people for decades into signing false confession

WOT? Did you like leave off in your reading on Spain just when Franco was coming to power? I don't think it's still like that. You must have assumed For Whom The Bell Tolls was a current events article or something.

Meh; all dictators end up the same way in the end.

Not all revolutions produce dictators. And it's time we stopped looking down on governments that are not flag waving apple pie democracies. Any government, elected or unelected, can have the support of their people. To assume that people like Saddam Hussein, etc lack public support and therefore that their people are in need of "liberation" is arrogance and an affront to international law. And besides, democracy can produce anti-US governments just as valiant in the fight against imperialism as dictatorships. For instance, see Congo, Palestine, Iran, Nicaragua, Chile and Venezuela, all of which democracies the US has sought to overthrow.

[Cobnat]

So then they can torture anyone so long as the people admit to being Al Qaeda. Super.

Admit? I am talking about POW’s capture in battle. Plus I never singled out Al Qaeda, they can torture coalition soldier too.

WOT? Did you like leave off in your reading on Spain just when Franco was coming to power? I don't think it's still like that. You must have assumed For Whom The Bell Tolls was a current events article or something.

The Spanish government has been torturing Basque separatists (soldiers/politicians/activists) since the Franco days and haven’t stopped for a coffee break either.

Not all revolutions produce dictators. And it's time we stopped looking down on governments that are not flag waving apple pie democracies. Any government, elected or unelected, can have the support of their people. To assume that people like Saddam Hussein, etc lack public support and therefore that their people are in need of "liberation" is arrogance and an affront to international law. And besides, democracy can produce anti-US governments just as valiant in the fight against imperialism as dictatorships. For instance, see Congo, Palestine, Iran, Nicaragua, Chile and Venezuela, all of which democracies the US has sought to overthrow.

I should have also said the Idi Amin had massive support from the population. I don’t disagree that dictators have/need public support, it is what keeps them in power. My argument is that violence ultimately turns the new revolutionary into the last dictator and those who are alright with using violence have no problem being the next dictator. South America, The Pacific and Africa have plenty of examples of this happening. Of course places like India and South Africa proved that you do not need violence to make a change.

[J m HofMarN]

So then they can torture people until they admit to being captured in battle. Go ahead, The Cobnuts, keep trying. Maybe people can't be tortured until they admit to having necrophiliac sex with Lincolns corpse, but guess what, after you torture people enough they'll admit to having necrophiliac sex with Lincoln's corpse. Repeat after me:

If torture is allowed on a group of people it can be applied to anyone.
If torture is allowed on a group of people it can be applied to anyone.
If torture is allowed on a group of people it can be applied to anyone.
If torture is allowed on a group of people it can be applied to anyone.

There, are we getting that yet?

The Spanish government has been torturing Basque separatists (soldiers/politicians/activists) since the Franco days and haven’t stopped for a coffee break either.

I'm not going to debate that since I don't feel like looking up Spain's human rights record. It's true that international law cannot govern individual nations, but nations need distinct laws on this stuff, and a nation that allows torture if whatever, allows torture pretty much any time it's convenient.

Of course places like India and South Africa proved that you do not need violence to make a change.

Awww how charming, you suddenly became a pacifist or something.

[Cobnat]

So then they can torture people until they admit to being captured in battle. Go ahead, The Cobnuts, keep trying. Maybe people can't be tortured until they admit to having necrophiliac sex with Lincolns corpse, but guess what, after you torture people enough they'll admit to having necrophiliac sex with Lincoln's corpse. Repeat after me:

Admit? I thought we were talking about information gathering and interrogation. But there will always be loopholes in laws allowing torture; it doesn’t matter if that torture is physical or psychological.

There, are we getting that yet?
I'm not going to debate that since I don't feel like looking up Spain's human rights record. It's true that international law cannot govern individual nations, but nations need distinct laws on this stuff, and a nation that allows torture if whatever, allows torture pretty much any time it's convenient.

But if there was an international law, who would enforce it? One country ultimately has to be a “police” for international law. If a country starts sending in troops everywhere and starts building bases to house those troops, we will be at that countries mercy.

Awww how charming, you suddenly became a pacifist or something.

I’m not a pacifist but I am not a militarist either. I’m just saying that non-violent resistance has shown much more progress then violent resistance; since violent resistance always leads to counter-insurgency and that often leads to atrocities.

Also the actions of violent resisters tend to help justify the atrocities in the eyes of the people and of other nations.

This post has been edited by Cobnat: 02 August 2007 - 09:55 PM

[Slade]

I should have also said the Idi Amin had massive support from the population. I don’t disagree that dictators have/need public support, it is what keeps them in power. My argument is that violence ultimately turns the new revolutionary into the last dictator and those who are alright with using violence have no problem being the next dictator. South America, The Pacific and Africa have plenty of examples of this happening. Of course places like India and South Africa proved that you do not need violence to make a change.

No. That's a modern idealist fantasy that is frequently proven untrue. There is nothing innate about despotism that secures its downfall, even to a new despot. The democratic republic is a relatively new idea, and frankly, I'm not convinced it can even work. In an ideal world, I think it's a novel idea, and I would never wish to live under a different type of rule, it's just not making a very great case for itself at the moment.

As far as what you are possibly saying about new dictators rising to power, you just shouldn't say "the last dictator" followed the "the next dictator." If he/she's the last one, there is no next! I am just not sure what you're talking about.

[Cobnat]

No. That's a modern idealist fantasy that is frequently proven untrue. There is nothing innate about despotism that secures its downfall, even to a new despot. The democratic republic is a relatively new idea, and frankly, I'm not convinced it can even work. In an ideal world, I think it's a novel idea, and I would never wish to live under a different type of rule, it's just not making a very great case for itself at the moment.

My argument is not that democracy works. Living under democracy my entire live I have realised that it is static and unable to evolve. My argument is that peaceful resistance usually gets more support from foreign nations (unless of course the oppressor is a superpower like Russia, China or the U.S) then violent resistance which is hard to justify because violent resistance often makes the rebels just as bad or worse then the government when it comes to crimes against civilians.

But you have to admit one thing, non-violent resisters have the benefit of moral superiority over the government and that is what makes them so popular among foreign civilians as well as home-grown.

As far as what you are possibly saying about new dictators rising to power, you just shouldn't say "the last dictator" followed the "the next dictator." If he/she's the last one, there is no next! I am just not sure what you're talking about.

The last is the prior dictator and the next is the new dictator.

Unless this is a joke, in which case: Well put.

[Bond]

All this about America torturing people of other nations: I suppose this can be expected, seeing as their record is against them.

Heck, back in the Revolution, they were breaking into tax collectors' homes, hauling them out into the street, tarring and feathering them en masse and then lighting them on fire! Hell, forget the Tea Party; a group of patriots in Rhode Island took the next step (a year earlier, I might add) and lit an entire fucking tax ship on fire!

The point of the story is: America has always been bat-fuck insane, and it probably always will be.