Mother Russia - A terrorist ??

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Arrian


Ah, so it was.

Excellent. Then I can mention the Einstatzgruppen. Just following orders. OBEY

-Arrian

I'd say go ahead and mention it anyway. Upon reading up on this important issue it appears you would have been covered by an exception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law

[onodera]

Yes, yes. The whole "just obeying the orders is a crime" thing was invented for the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, just so we, the Allies, would have a legal basis for prosecuting more Nazis and Japanese brass.

[BeBMan]

Usually, if your country buys into intl rules of warfare there's the view of certain orders being per se illegal, so you don't have to follow them. At least that's how it is here now. Of course if you can refuse them in praxis without endangering yourself is another question. But then my impression is that most who engage in **** aren't only forced to do ****.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by onodera
Also, that's the first time I've heard of that, so I'll need some time to prepare a reply.
However, I have a link for you to read in the meantime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

You're aware that that was a HUGE incident in the US when it became public and resulted in a large shift of US perception of the war? It was (rightly) the poster child of the antiwar movement.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by onodera
Yes, if you're in the military and you're acting under orders, you're not doing anything wrong. The right thing is to obey.

That's exactly what most of the Nazis said at Nuremberg. This is actually a legitimate invocation of Godwin.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian
That's a blatant Godwin trap.

-Arrian

Except it's one of the few cases where the comparison to Nazis is 100% legitimate!

[Pekka]

So if you think a soldier must obey and if he feels it is in fact a crime, then do it and then send a complaint about it later on.

This has got nothing to do with military anymore per se now does it? Here the logic would go, State tells you to commit a, what is commonly known as a crime on humanity, and you feel like this is something you should then do. Because it's all BS anyway, these trials and whatnot, it's war, there's no rules in a war.

But you see, you're not talking about military OR war anymore. How is that you might ask? It is pretty obvious though.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GePap
No, there guys aren't terrorist. War criminals, yes, but not terrorists.

Actually, under the original definition of terrorism, they are the terrorists. Terrorism, originally, was something a state does to its own citizens.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Pekka
So if you think a soldier must obey and if he feels it is in fact a crime, then do it and then send a complaint about it later on.

In the United States military, it is a crime to obey an unlawful order. Of course, if you fail to obey an order in the field, you can be shot by your CO. Even if he doesn't shoot you, he can bring you up on charges, so you better be damn sure you're right.

In any event, bringing up something the U.S. did in 1968 is relevant how to what the Russians are doing in Chechnya now?

[Blaupanzer]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
Actually, under the original definition of terrorism, they are the terrorists. Terrorism, originally, was something a state does to its own citizens.

On what basis do you say this? It has been my impression that Bakunin derived the Russian version of this word and doctrine in the 1800s. It is he who defined terrorism as a "attract their attention" kind of effort. While states can do it to their own citizens, the doctrine was derived by the anarchists to get the press and the Government to acknowledge their existance. Do you have another source (preferably not Wikipedia)?

[Guardian]

Originally posted by onodera
Yes, yes. The whole "just obeying the orders is a crime" thing was invented for the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, just so we, the Allies, would have a legal basis for prosecuting more Nazis and Japanese brass.

Actually, it makes perfect sense to me. We are all individuals, and as individuals we have our own free minds and our own free will - with which we make our own choices regarding what we do with our lives. We always have a choice. Sure, there are times when the consequences of choosing one option over another may be serious, even extreme. But we always have a choice. And when we do something, it is because we chose to do it.

So, if you follow an order, you do so not because you were ordered, but because you chose to follow that order. Hence, you are accountable for your actions.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Except it's one of the few cases where the comparison to Nazis is 100% legitimate!

Obviously. Which is why I thought it was a trap. I always think everything is a trap, which is why I'm still alive...

Incidently, all this time I've used "Godwins Law" instead of the proper "Dodds Corollary." Godwin sounds better, I guess.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer


On what basis do you say this? It has been my impression that Bakunin derived the Russian version of this word and doctrine in the 1800s. It is he who defined terrorism as a "attract their attention" kind of effort. While states can do it to their own citizens, the doctrine was derived by the anarchists to get the press and the Government to acknowledge their existance. Do you have another source (preferably not Wikipedia)?

It predates Bakunin by about 100 years, to the French Revolution and the Terror.

[Blaupanzer]

Guardian, your ideas work well in the abstract. However, if your officer just shot the last man who said "no," and your unit is not ready to revolt, THEN "I was only following orders," seems like a perfectly reasonable defense.

[Arrian]

An interesting tidbit about the Einstatzgruppen: commanding officers asked for volunteers to line up the Jews and shoot them. People who didn't want to didn't have to. Most volunteered.

-Arrian