Take off the gloves

[Des-Bal]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

[South Lorenya]

It's bad enough that the enemy is committing atrocities; the LAST thing the people need is for you to also commit atrocities.

[United Russian State]

No, it is stupid to if your enemy refuses to.

Fight fire with fire.

[Buffett and Colbert]

It's bad enough that the enemy is committing atrocities; the LAST thing the people need is for you to also commit atrocities.

/thread

[Zeppy]

Condoms.

[Ashmoria]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

what are you talking about?

are you suggesting that it is OK for US to kill civilians in order to defeat those who kill civilians?

[Arresyl]

It's bad enough that the enemy is committing atrocities; the LAST thing the people need is for you to also commit atrocities.

That depends entirely on what you define as an atrocity.

[Aznakayevo]

It's economical and psychological warfare. You kill civilians, you weaken the economy and money flow of the government. You kill civilians, many times the enemy must surrender. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two examples of both.

[Risottia]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

what are you talking about?

are you suggesting that it is OK for US to kill civilians in order to defeat those who kill civilians?

Of course. If you kill all civilians before they could, they would find no civilians to kill anymore, and you would have foiled their plan.

...

[Arresyl]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

what are you talking about?

are you suggesting that it is OK for US to kill civilians in order to defeat those who kill civilians?

That depends. Do we think said civillians are providing the enemy with intelligence?

[Risottia]

It's bad enough that the enemy is committing atrocities; the LAST thing the people need is for you to also commit atrocities.

That depends entirely on what you define as an atrocity.

Let's use "war crime" instead. Much more clearly defined.

[Ashmoria]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

what are you talking about?

are you suggesting that it is OK for US to kill civilians in order to defeat those who kill civilians?

That depends. Do we think said civillians are providing the enemy with intelligence?

some may be. does that excuse killing the rest?

[Arresyl]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

what are you talking about?

are you suggesting that it is OK for US to kill civilians in order to defeat those who kill civilians?

That depends. Do we think said civillians are providing the enemy with intelligence?

some may be. does that excuse killing the rest?

Yes, if it saves the lives of your own soldiers and if you don't know exactly which civillians are providing the enemy with said intelligence.

[North Suran]

"As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."

/thread

[Ashmoria]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

what are you talking about?

are you suggesting that it is OK for US to kill civilians in order to defeat those who kill civilians?

That depends. Do we think said civillians are providing the enemy with intelligence?

some may be. does that excuse killing the rest?

Yes, if it saves the lives of your own soldiers and if you don't know exactly which civillians are providing the enemy with said intelligence.

so in your mind it is GOOD to kill civilians in order to stop those who kill civilians?

what is the difference between you and them?

[Neu Mitanni]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

We should comply with treaty obligations only to other signatories of that treaty, or to non-signatories that are specifically provided for in such treaties. In particular, we should observe the Geneva Conventions only with respect to co-signatories or specifically enumerated civilian groups that are protected as such by the Conventions.

In contrast, AQ, for example, is none of the above, and should be dealt with like pirates were historically dealt with: literally as outlaws, not entitled to the protection of any law anywhere in the world, and subject to summary execution if captured.

[Ashmoria]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

We should comply with treaty obligations only to other signatories of that treaty, or to non-signatories that are specifically provided for in such treaties. In particular, we should observe the Geneva Conventions only with respect to co-signatories or specifically enumerated civilian groups that are protected as such by the Conventions.

In contrast, AQ, for example, is none of the above, and should be dealt with like pirates were historically dealt with: literally as outlaws, not entitled to the protection of any law anywhere in the world, and subject to summary execution if captured.

i would agree, as it seems the US govt also agrees, that it is OK to kill those that we deem to be "the enemy". that is why we do all those drone attacks in pakistan eh?

i was assuming that he was referring to .... oh lets say NUKING the border region of pakistan in order to stop terrorists from working out of there.

[Buffett and Colbert]

We should comply with treaty obligations only to other signatories of that treaty, or to non-signatories that are specifically provided for in such treaties. In particular, we should observe the Geneva Conventions only with respect to co-signatories or specifically enumerated civilian groups that are protected as such by the Conventions.

The only part of the Geneva Conventions that apply to people otherwise not covered is common article 3 (and that's just just to prisoners at Guantanamo, technically). So you should be happy.

[Arresyl]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

what are you talking about?

are you suggesting that it is OK for US to kill civilians in order to defeat those who kill civilians?

That depends. Do we think said civillians are providing the enemy with intelligence?

some may be. does that excuse killing the rest?

Yes, if it saves the lives of your own soldiers and if you don't know exactly which civillians are providing the enemy with said intelligence.

so in your mind it is GOOD to kill civilians in order to stop those who kill civilians?

what is the difference between you and them?

Their people are dead, while mine yet live.

Also, they likely killed my people just to anger us. We kill their people because it helps us to kill them.

So, I suppose I'm the smarter one.

[Ashmoria]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

what are you talking about?

are you suggesting that it is OK for US to kill civilians in order to defeat those who kill civilians?

That depends. Do we think said civillians are providing the enemy with intelligence?

some may be. does that excuse killing the rest?

Yes, if it saves the lives of your own soldiers and if you don't know exactly which civillians are providing the enemy with said intelligence.

so in your mind it is GOOD to kill civilians in order to stop those who kill civilians?

what is the difference between you and them?

Their people are dead, while mine yet live.

Also, they likely killed my people just to anger us. We kill their people because it helps us to kill them.

So, I suppose I'm the smarter one.

well isnt that a great attitude.

why not ignore those losers and go bomb a country that would be good to have after we kill all the civilians? .... like mexico--a much better place for vacation than afghanistan ever will be.

[South Lorenya]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

We should comply with treaty obligations only to other signatories of that treaty, or to non-signatories that are specifically provided for in such treaties. In particular, we should observe the Geneva Conventions only with respect to co-signatories or specifically enumerated civilian groups that are protected as such by the Conventions.

In contrast, AQ, for example, is none of the above, and should be dealt with like pirates were historically dealt with: literally as outlaws, not entitled to the protection of any law anywhere in the world, and subject to summary execution if captured.

Keep in mind that one of their recruitment methods is to blow up schools, burn down fields, etc. in an attempt to leave people with the "choice" between joining them and starving to death. Are you suggestiung that perople forced into it like that should be massacred too?

[Neu Mitanni]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

We should comply with treaty obligations only to other signatories of that treaty, or to non-signatories that are specifically provided for in such treaties. In particular, we should observe the Geneva Conventions only with respect to co-signatories or specifically enumerated civilian groups that are protected as such by the Conventions.

In contrast, AQ, for example, is none of the above, and should be dealt with like pirates were historically dealt with: literally as outlaws, not entitled to the protection of any law anywhere in the world, and subject to summary execution if captured.

i would agree, as it seems the US govt also agrees, that it is OK to kill those that we deem to be "the enemy". that is why we do all those drone attacks in pakistan eh?

i was assuming that he was referring to .... oh lets say NUKING the border region of pakistan in order to stop terrorists from working out of there.

Nuking Waziristan is probably not the most effective tactic. I'd settle for generally depopulating it, and letting the Paks do most of the depopulating.

[Arresyl]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

what are you talking about?

are you suggesting that it is OK for US to kill civilians in order to defeat those who kill civilians?

That depends. Do we think said civillians are providing the enemy with intelligence?

some may be. does that excuse killing the rest?

Yes, if it saves the lives of your own soldiers and if you don't know exactly which civillians are providing the enemy with said intelligence.

so in your mind it is GOOD to kill civilians in order to stop those who kill civilians?

what is the difference between you and them?

Their people are dead, while mine yet live.

Also, they likely killed my people just to anger us. We kill their people because it helps us to kill them.

So, I suppose I'm the smarter one.

well isnt that a great attitude.

why not ignore those losers and go bomb a country that would be good to have after we kill all the civilians? .... like mexico--a much better place for vacation than afghanistan ever will be.

Because it won't be nearly as nice after we bomb it, and a bunch of idiots would be mad at us?

Besides, I dislike being the one to actually start the fighting... Now, if we could trick Mexico into attacking us first, sure, why the hell not?

[Nuevo Imperio Espanol]

No, it is stupid to if your enemy refuses to.

Fight fire with fire.

Fight fire with fire, and you get burned.

Wow, didn't see that one coming!!!

[Neu Mitanni]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

We should comply with treaty obligations only to other signatories of that treaty, or to non-signatories that are specifically provided for in such treaties. In particular, we should observe the Geneva Conventions only with respect to co-signatories or specifically enumerated civilian groups that are protected as such by the Conventions.

In contrast, AQ, for example, is none of the above, and should be dealt with like pirates were historically dealt with: literally as outlaws, not entitled to the protection of any law anywhere in the world, and subject to summary execution if captured.

Keep in mind that one of their recruitment methods is to blow up schools, burn down fields, etc. in an attempt to leave people with the "choice" between joining them and starving to death. Are you suggestiung that perople forced into it like that should be massacred too?

First off, the whole "recruitment" theory is untenable in my view. Second, all the more reason to find and exterminate all AQ members, especially the leadership. Third, it's a false choice. The people can always choose to turn on the terrorists. Some of them may die in that fight, but at least they'd be fighting for their own freedom. Fourth, if they're "forced" into it and happen to die, the responsibility for their deaths is on AQ, not us.