The Washington Post hurts my brain

[Jon Miller]

This is false.
Throughout most history there was no Geneva Convention, so throughout history, those without nation never enjoyed any legal status, and were usually killed and maimed in different forms without hesitation.

This has recently been recognized as a bad thing.

JM

[Theben]

Given that he hasn't provided any evidence (for that matter, tubbins and I are the only people in this thread who have ever linked to outside sources), I'm not sure how your response applies.

You are in violation of the Apolyton Code, Section 6, sub-section A, paragraph 1, which clearly states that:

[A]ny and all misspellings of the poster Theben shall be limited 1 form of misspelling per thread per poster- i.e., Theban and Thobin in the same thread are acceptable if performed by an individual poster, but Turban used twice is a violation unless written by 2 separate persons. Double logins are acceptable, unless caught.

30 demerits for you.

[Solomwi]

You are in violation of the Apolyton Code, Section 6, sub-section A, paragraph 1, which clearly states that:


30 demerits for you.

Tomball, shouldn't that read "shall be limited to 1 instance per form of misspelling per thread per poster"? As it's written, the example is completely backwards, Tribben.

[Kuciwalker]

oops

[Sirotnikov]

This has recently been recognized as a bad thing.

JM

Yes, only recently.

Which is why the GC, being a recent document, and having been drafted by nation states, during the bloom of nation states, addresses issues encountered in warfare between nation states.

Previously, small groups, rarely had the resources to form a military force that could compete with a state army. Furthermore, most of the terrorist tactics used today, were developed after WWII, and were not given attention in the GC.

Thus the writers of GC never addressed issues arising from modern insurgency warfare, making your claim that "People have been fighting those who are without a nation and who could be legally a non-combatant throughout history" moot.

We're not discussing history, but the history of the GC.

[Theben]

Tomball, shouldn't that read "shall be limited to 1 instance per form of misspelling per thread per poster"? As it's written, the example is completely backwards, Tribben.

Hmmm, you're right. We'll need to amend that. Good catch.

[Blaupanzer]

Given that he hasn't provided any evidence (for that matter, tubbins and I are the only people in this thread who have ever linked to outside sources), I'm not sure how your response applies.

Guilty of no linking. But Snoop and I both told the posters where to look, and the document (the Geneva Convention) is publically available on the net in several places and in multiple languages. Both Snoop and I felt that was evidence enough for our "nation states" definition of war. DD said that definition wasn't right, and we asked him for another source for the definition of war with international authority. He then began drumming on us to put up or STFU. My response on the psycho side was to his SECOND STFU message. If reason won't work then I'm perfectly willing to note that he has no right to "bully" people on this or any other forum in language he apparently understands.

[DinoDoc]

I'm still waiting for you to post that quote you keep saying is so easy to find. This is troubling given how easy you claim it is to find and how definative you say it is in proving your claim.

[Kuciwalker]

Guilty of no linking. But Snoop and I both told the posters where to look, and the document (the Geneva Convention) is publically available on the net in several places and in multiple languages.

Dude, the Geneva Convention is a set of four documents which between them contain hundreds of articles. This is roughly analogous to me claiming something about US law and then saying "it's in the constitution" by way of citation (worse, in fact). DD is totally right to ask you to put up or shut up.

[Theben]

I'm still waiting for you to post that quote you keep saying is so easy to find. This is troubling given how easy you claim it is to find and how definative you say it is in proving your claim.

Considering how the legal systems of nations work, I would be very surprised if there wasn't an internationally recognized legal definition of what "war" is. But I wonder more why DD thinks it's important enough to mention in the 1st place.

[Zkribbler]

WAR - A contention by force; or the art of paralysing the forces of an enemy.

It is either public or private. It is not intended here to speak of the latter.

Public war is either civil or national. Civil war is that which is waged between two parties, citizens or members of the same state or nation. National war is a contest between two or more independent nations) carried on by authority of their respective governments.

War is not only an act, but a state or condition, for nations are said to be at war not only when their armies are engaged, so as to be in the very act of contention, but also when, they have any matter of controversy or dispute subsisting between them which they are determined to decide by the use of force, and have declared publicly, or by their acts, their determination so to decide it.

National wars are said to be offensive or defensive. War is offensive on the part of that government which commits the first act of violence; it is defensive on the part of that government which receives such act; but it is very difficult to say what is the first act of violence. If a nation sees itself menaced with an attack, its first act of violence to prevent such attack, will be considered as defensive.

To legalize a war it must be declared by that branch of the government entrusted by the Constitution with this power. And it seems it need not be declared by both the belligerent powers. By the Constitution of the United States, Art. I, Congress is invested with power "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; and they have also the power to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy."

[Kuciwalker]

That definition was written in 1839, Zkrib, and not in any legal document.

[DinoDoc]

But I wonder more why DD thinks it's important enough to mention in the 1st place.

I made a throw away comment that called BS on a comment snoopy made and apparently Blaupanzer took offense. That catches you up.

[Theben]

That's what I gathered the 1st time. IOW, I can ignore you.

[DinoDoc]

No skin off my nose.