OT: Free speech?

[sachmo]

Originally posted by dogscoff:

Within limits, yes. However it is perfectly possible for a nation to defend itself against an attack without resorting to the kind of methods outlawed by the geneva convention.

I have not read the articles of the Geneva convention, so I cannot comment on each of them in particualar. However, with just my passing knowledge of them, I think I'd have to disagree with your statement.

Just taking as an example a war where one country has a tremendous military advantage over the other. The conventional war will be over in days, but the guerilla conflict could Last for a long time. The weaker force would have to break the will of the larger force, as they cannot hope to win a military victory. To break their will, they would almost assuredly have to commit atrocities against the soldiers of the invading army before the invading army can break the will of the people.

[Gandalf Parker]

Interesting notes about Germany: Nazism was voted into power with less than 50% of the votes. The stance was rebuilding the economy and protection from things outside of the country. Early changes were in defense of national security. It was only later when they discovered that "temporary actions" werent being removed that many started getting nervous.

[dogscoff]

To break their will, they would almost assuredly have to commit atrocities against the soldiers of the invading army before the invading army can break the will of the people.

Then it's better to die or just give up the fight. If my country were invaded and I were fighting a guerilla resistance, I would kill enemy soldiers at every opportunity and using whatever sneaky methods were available to me, but to commit human rights abuses beyond that..?

Well, if I were to win by such methods then I would no longer be the same person at the end of it and the country would no longer be the same country I had tried to defend. It would not be a worthwhile victory.

Maybe I would feel differently if I were in that situation, but that wouldn't make it right.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
DELURKING

You can fire off your counter points, I won't be reading them.

RE-LURKING

That's hypocritical. 'You listen to me, but I won't listen to you.'

[ May 19, 2004, 20:15: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[dogscoff]

good point narf. unfortunately, he's not listening...

[sachmo]

Originally posted by dogscoff:

quote:

---

To break their will, they would almost assuredly have to commit atrocities against the soldiers of the invading army before the invading army can break the will of the people.

Then it's better to die or just give up the fight. If my country were invaded and I were fighting a guerilla resistance, I would kill enemy soldiers at every opportunity and using whatever sneaky methods were available to me, but to commit human rights abuses beyond that..?

Well, if I were to win by such methods then I would no longer be the same person at the end of it and the country would no longer be the same country I had tried to defend. It would not be a worthwhile victory.

Maybe I would feel differently if I were in that situation, but that wouldn't make it right.

---

I hear you, Dogscoff. I certainly wouldn't want to find out.
Maybe that's why they say war changes people. I'll have to ponder that.

[Grauzone]

Originally posted by Randallw:
Stalin murdered many more of his own people* than Hitler yet Hitler is considered worse... Truely History is written by the victor.

*strangely enough neither Stalin or Hitler was actually from the country he ran.

I think you are right. It is the precicion and efficiency that makes germans to the worst criminals in this time (and the fact that they loose the conflict). But i don't understand why and how my generation of german adults is responsible for this crime. To criticise Israelian politics brings you automaticaly near to the position of Antisemitism, even though many of israelian doings are not so far from what Stalin has do with ethnical minorities in russia. And why do the USA protect this behaviour?

[Randallw]

Blaming Germans today for what past generations did is as stupid as antisemitism blaming jews for what their ancient ancestors might have once done.

[Renegade 13]

I have to say that I've thought about this subject quite a bit. And I've come to the conclusion that if my home country was invaded, I would kill enemy soldiers at any opportunity, while remaining hidden, if possible. However, I would not force them to suffer before they died. Their death would be clean and (relatively) painless. A quick shot.

Now that might sound a little scary to some of you, but I would do whatever it took to protect my friends and family....within limits. It is not worth degrading and dehumanizing yourself to expel an enemy from your homeland. In the end, you would end up being a worse person than if you had died.

Personally, I would rather die than commit atrocities against any other human being.

[PvK]

Like many such "moral" questions, the reason for doing the right thing is often not just "to be good" or even "to be able to live with oneself".

In this example, commiting attrocities as the occupied underdog resistance fighter may be very likely to result in terrible retribution upon one's own people (a typical historical result) - likely worse than non-attrocious resistance would. When the enemy has your people at their mercy, it's not the best time to play "who can inflict the worst attrocities". Even if somehow the enemy would not reciprocate, the tactical value of attrocity is often minimal, or even negative. In fact, a common and ancient propaganda technique (though also, not a wise one in the end) is to lie about the attrocities of the enemy, to promote fearlessness and determination in one's own people.

PvK