• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Shambles

Bloodshed in Gaza: "It's a hell of a pinpoint operation"

legalizeall said:
There is so much horror that goes on in war that none of you will ever know about. Your all just molded by what the media shows you but thats not the whole picture. Never said you have to accept it either. I think its odd that people are shocked at some of the things they hear about and if people really knew what really goes on in warfare their would be no support of it from anyone
Click to expand...

Actually i think it's directly because people had a clear view of what war could be that we have laws of war in the first place - most of these rules were put in place when the populations had got so sick of imperialist wars (and we actually had wars in europe) that the elites had to pretend to care about cannon fodder dying to prevent a revolution (or just some democracy). Up until ww1 the elites didn't care and just blatantly carried on with their imperial game using poor people as chess pieces. They still play their imperial chess game, but they have to make more and more effort to convince us that a war is about freedom and democracy (or some other bollocks) - they've created various laws of war and international law, but this was always victor's justice: we only apply it to 'baddies' and never to ourself (even just after ww2 when lots of the rules were established, we only applied them to the nazis (and forgot about dresden etc)) - despite this it still allows us to judge our governments by the standards they use on inconvenient states (eg we know that invading iraq was 'the ultimate war crime that encapsulates all other war crimes' according to nurmeberg (a malaysian court has even prosecuted blair bush cheney etc in absentia (any link to malaysian airlines troubles? (probably a bit tin foil-y)).

These days the 'west' has shied away from big set-piece wars partly because the trouble they had when they conscripted large numbers of poor people (after both wars there was an upsurge of socialism among the plebs (helped by the book 'the ragged trousered philanthropist'), which gave us our nhs and welfare state). Now we just create and control loads of little proxy wars through covert action (and kill just as many people overall - see mark curtis' 'unpeople' for the figures) - we still get to do our imperial thing, with the added bonus of being able to point at the regimes we successfully destabilise and say 'see, the darkies can't even manage a democracy. They need a world policeman to keep them in line'.

Recently we've added on shit like 'responsibility to protect' (R2P), allowing us to strong arm the UN into facilitating more traditional imperialist actions with the superficial veil of 'humanitarianism' (though unsurprisingly we only hear the R2P crowd when it lines up with caesar's plans (eg libya/syria/kosovo), and have never heard R2P mentioned in relation to eg palestine or east ukraine)

I agree that people are naturally against war (and for social justice for that matter), and the whole edifice of propaganda/media is needed in order to so befuddle us and our view of reality that we believe shit like terrrists and muslims or reds are under our beds (or 'trickle-down'). The public can well handle knowledge of the horrors of war, as long as the propaganda frame has already dehumanised our victims into baddies or 'unpeople' of one sort or another. Propaganda (like marketing generally) is about controlling us through fear and UK and US are the pioneers of this (creel/ministry of information/bernays etc).

[oops, i've done my usual mega-waffle (with too many (brackets)) in place of a simple answer.

tl;dr - we are the baddies/evil empire (and get better at reading ;))
 
Last edited:
I don't think people are 'naturally' against war Virtual and I think natural is a dangerous word to use. It is natural for the stronger animal aggressor to rip the head off the weaker. For our consciousness I don't think that's a trait worth lauding. The point is to rise above that.

I really done see why you're all giving Legaliseall a hard time. The rules of war might appeal to some common decency in all of you but don't be fooled things like the Geneva Convention are anything more than another attempt at Just War Theory. And a very academic attempt at that, far removed from the reality of rape, mutilation and death. I agree with Legalize - the very notion of law in war may be an honourable ambition (on some far removed planet) but is in reality abomination and hypocrisy at best.
 
I think you're coming from different angles though.

Your post reads to me like "Fuck war" his reads like "Fuck people, it's war!".

The way Legalizeall is talking is as though there should be no geneva convention, no war crimes trials, that I am delusional for thinking a soldier could/should be tried for a murder committed during a war.
 
StoneHappyMonday said:
I don't think people are 'naturally' against war Virtual and I think natural is a dangerous word to use. It is natural for the stronger animal aggressor to rip the head off the weaker. For our consciousness I don't think that's a trait worth lauding. The point is to rise above that...
Click to expand...

I disagree (we've maybe had this conversation before) - i think humans are naturally social animals and therefore have evolved altruism, cooperation, compassion and such. Infact our nastiness is often based on this social nature against an 'other' tribe (in short i'd say any inherent nastiness is mostly not at the individual level but at the level of our social constructs (and reflects their inequality and such) - and a social construct is 'historical'/contigent and isn't 'natural' or inherent at individual level (imo). (you could talk about any particualr social construct being inherently violent though)

'Science' now emphasises this cooperative nature (eg, eg)much more than the individualistic 'nature red in tooth and claw' that was popular in the past (this social darwinist version was promoted as it happened to suit the class structure, but has proved inaccurate in many ways)

[quote from one of the links: "Cooperation isn't just a byproduct of competition, or something done only because both parties receive some benefit from the partnership,[...] rather, altruism and cooperation are inherent in primates, including humans." (robert sussman)]

...

I agree with you about laws of war like the geneva convention being a way to just carry on with the wars (a modern equivalent of the chivalric/samurai code (and just as meaningless)). However the supposed principles of nuremberg, the ideas of international law and crimes against humanity are still worthwhile yardsticks to sharpen and poke at the warmongers (even if to very little effect).
 
Last edited:
10909_10152190864611863_726647136422321146_n.jpg
 
Vurtual said:
I agree with you about laws of war like the geneva convention being a way to just carry on with the wars (a modern equivalent of the chivalric/samurai code (and just as meaningless)). However the supposed principles of nuremberg, the ideas of international law and crimes against humanity are still worthwhile yardsticks to sharpen and poke at the warmongers (even if to very little effect).
Click to expand...

More or less my view too. Whilst I agree with SHM that these things were borne out of "winner's justice" and tend to be applied far more vigorously to whoever the current boogeystate is, I'd also say that it's better than nothing given world peace is probably unlikely to break out any time soon. Not an ideal system for sure - and would certainly support a more balanced and fair approach to who gets prosecuted and who gets a free pass - but I'd rather have some system that can at least try to hold individuals and nations to some type of basic standards of... well obviously not decency cos war can never be decent but there are clearly some incidents which are truly beyond the pale no matter what and if/when such incidents occur there should be consquences for those actions same as in any other area of life.
 
spacejunk said:
Heard of the Nuremberg Trials? The International Criminal Court?

Do you understand what a war crime is?
Jesus fucking Christ.
Click to expand...
Do you understand what war is? Have you ever talked to anyone that has been on the ground fighting in a major war? People that were right in the middle of it where cameras and media are not present? Have they told you what they saw and what they had to do and the many experiences they went through that people like you and me will never have to go thru? Then be quiet
 
legalizeall said:
Do you understand what war is? Have you ever talked to anyone that has been on the ground fighting in a major war? People that were right in the middle of it where cameras and media are not present? Have they told you what they saw and what they had to do and the many experiences they went through that people like you and me will never have to go thru? Then be quiet
Click to expand...

Yeah be quiet guys. This guy knows a squaddie.
If only you'd mentioned earlier that you knew a squaddie, nobody would've voiced an opinion thats different to yours. This whole ugly mess could've been avoided.
 
legalizeall said:
Have you ever talked to anyone that has been on the ground fighting in a major war? People that were right in the middle of it where cameras and media are not present? Have they told you what they saw and what they had to do and the many experiences they went through that people like you and me will never have to go thru?
Click to expand...

Yes. Many times.
 
legalizeall said:
Do you understand what war is? Have you ever talked to anyone that has been on the ground fighting in a major war? People that were right in the middle of it where cameras and media are not present? Have they told you what they saw and what they had to do and the many experiences they went through that people like you and me will never have to go thru? Then be quiet
Click to expand...

We all understand what a war is - the question is whether after the war there should be some prosecution of the soldiers (and their superiors) that decided it was alright to eg drop cluster bombs into a civilian area (or bomb a civilian population to make them turn against a govenrment as in gaza or dresden (collective punishment is a war crime)) - 'just following orders' doesn't get them out of war crimes under nuremberg (if you're a nazi anyway). On a national level, the crime is invading without a direct threat (like we did in iraq/afghanistan) which is where presidents/prime ministers should be liable (in theory). While this system is largely futile and biased, the idea is to act as a deterrent to 'big' countries' military strategies as they'll want to cooperate with the 'international community' afterwards (in effect it becomes a protection racket and pressure to buy posher 'surgical' weapons off us (never half as posh as our own obviously)

War is a crime in itself (and a racket). You might know some people fighting a war - but I'm sure it's more frightening for the poor civilians (i know some of these actually) who happen to live in the countries that big sophisticated war machines like ours turn up in (or for the pitiful opponents that we choose to fight - the average taleban or hamas fighter is objectively far 'braver' than eg a us soldier with massively superior technology (drones, flechettes, phosphorus etc) backed up by the world's biggest army; even if some of them may have a bad time of it, or have nightmares from blowing up kids. The american or british army as a whole don't really deserve sympathy for wars because they haven't been attacked by another country since ww2 - just attacked others for bullshit reasons (individual soldiers is something else - we're all humans (on all sides) - but they weren't conscripted (except maybe psychologically))
 
Last edited:
Vurtual said:
I disagree (we've maybe had this conversation before) - i think humans are naturally social animals and therefore have evolved altruism, cooperation, compassion and such. Infact our nastiness is often based on this social nature against an 'other' tribe (in short i'd say any inherent nastiness is mostly not at the individual level but at the level of our social constructs (and reflects their inequality and such) - and a social construct is 'historical'/contigent and isn't 'natural' or inherent at individual level (imo). (you could talk about any particualr social construct being inherently violent though)

'Science' now emphasises this cooperative nature (eg, eg)much more than the individualistic 'nature red in tooth and claw' that was popular in the past (this social darwinist version was promoted as it happened to suit the class structure, but has proved inaccurate in many ways)

[quote from one of the links: "Cooperation isn't just a byproduct of competition, or something done only because both parties receive some benefit from the partnership,[...] rather, altruism and cooperation are inherent in primates, including humans." (robert sussman)]

...

I agree with you about laws of war like the geneva convention being a way to just carry on with the wars (a modern equivalent of the chivalric/samurai code (and just as meaningless)). However the supposed principles of nuremberg, the ideas of international law and crimes against humanity are still worthwhile yardsticks to sharpen and poke at the warmongers (even if to very little effect).
Click to expand...

Sorry I've had three attempts at this and I'm getting nowhere. Man creates society but society comes to create Man.

Back to the point about rules of war. They legitimize killing. They give rise to the concept of a 'legal killing'. And I can't get my head around that. Someone go have a word with Israel re proportionality. I can see that going well. Rape as a war crime? That saved the women of the DRC.

But what about the rules! Nah I find the whole concept of the rules of war, and what is and isn't a Just War totally bizarre. Yeah maybe for different reasons to Legalize.

EDIT FOUR Oh good grief. I chopped the top half of the post off and can't be bothered to try again as my head is in glue.

Being nasty is just part of our human capability. It gets exploited by warmongers but is an individual trait we all hold. This is different to say patriotism, which is most definitely not natural or innate. And just because we are capable of being nasty and irrational and illogical does not negate the fact we are basically cooperative creatures, as we have to be logically, for our own survival.

OK I did try again but my head is still in glue.
 
Last edited:
On a fundamental level I completely agree, SHM. What would be the alternative though? Throwing out the existing system for a fairer one I can see, throwing it out completely seems a bit baby/bathwater to me. What alternative system would you like to see? Much as I'd <3 to live in a world where such things are unnecessary I can't see how that is likely to be brought about.
 
StoneHappyMonday said:
Sorry I've had three attempts at this and I'm getting nowhere. Man creates society but society comes to create Man.

Back to the point about rules of war. They legitimize killing. They give rise to the concept of a 'legal killing'. And I can't get my head around that. Someone go have a word with Israel re proportionality. I can see that going well. Rape as a war crime? That saved the women of the DRC.

But what about the rules! Nah I find the whole concept of the rules of war, and what is and isn't a Just War totally bizarre. Yeah maybe for different reasons to Legalize.
Click to expand...

The way i understand nuremberg (which is very slightly obviously) is that it's supposed to make war illegal except when defending against an agressor (there was plenty of appetite among the masses for a ban on wars after ww2) - this was never really intended except for the 'enemies' i'm sure, and exceptions and nuances have been steadily added over time (like preemptive strikes, r2p etc). If the bullshit we preach were actually applied honestly it might be alright (to a point).

The point about following up and prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity is that we (the little people) can sometimes use their system against them, if only in principle and usually not in actual prosecution (though who doesn't know tony blair is a war criminal?). I don't for one minute believe in any system of international law as is - it's obviously just the american empire's UN - however there are various opportunities for embarrasment and political points to be scored (if not much actual justice) - these sort of actions are very slight in effect, but over time many nicks can build up to a crisis for the cunts forcing them into some mild concession (this sort of long-slog strategy is all the 'left' (aka justice) has got really)

(my other waffle was just saying: the organisation of society is historical and contingent; ie can change, and has been/could be eg violent or mellow and anarchist - it's in some (if you like) dialectic process of becoming; and so it's current (or recent) properties are not inherent to humanity, like (say) our individual cooperative nature is (clearer? ;)) (i know that this is waffle (but it is what i think ('cept maybe the dialectics bit...))

[as for 'man creates society' - i'd say man doesn't create society, but society's structure emerges from the interactions of many men (like an ant colony or city layout) and is contingent on physical/technological factors. I subscribe to the kropotkin 'anarchy is order' view of society as an emergent property (the state is something else...). Kropotkin's ideas (as well as marx's to a degree) seem to me to align with ideas coming from the new science of complex systems.]
 
Last edited:
Note that Kissinger hasn't been charged for creating the situation that allowed the Khmer Rouge to come to power (secretly carpet bombing Cambodia during the Nixon era), reducing cities to rubble).

War crimes may not apply to Americans now, but blimey there'd be some charges to be waded through if a warcrimes court did have jurisdiction over US and Israeli atrocities (or UK/Australia for that matter). It'd take decades to sort through (but it would be worth it).
 
Some ideal of how the system works? Eh, no. I never even hinted at that.

I was just quoting that to show that cunts at the top of the Khmer Rouge have just been done for war crimes. They might be 900 years old, and about to die tomorrow, but do you think it's a bad thing that they've just been charged with something? Do you think it's a bad thing for their victims to know that some little tiny sliver of justice has been done?

Fuck it then. Lets just scrap war crimes trials, the geneva convention, all that crap. Fuck it right out the window because it's a joke anyway, expecting there to be some sort of rules to war. Next time we send the British Army into some arab country we'll actively encourage them to rape and murder all the children they find because... it's war init?


War is immoral, but it isn't wrong, stupid or misguided to try (even in vain) to force some sort of morality into the situation.
 
spacejunk said:
Note that Kissinger hasn't been charged for creating the situation that allowed the Khmer Rouge to come to power (secretly carpet bombing Cambodia during the Nixon era), reducing cities to rubble)...
Click to expand...

Hey, don't forget how maggie thatcher and her government supported the khmer rouge after they did their massacres - link (also got form with pinochet and caucescu).

Kissinger and Nixon's tapes contain loads of evidence of prima facie war crimes (like bombing dams after being told it would kill 100,000) - but kissinger still swans around the world starting wars - Khmer rouge are bottom-feeders so they can be done (the delay probably indicates how useful they were to us).

Just because the bastards are so powerful that they can avoid rules they themselves invented, doesn't mean we should hold them to no rules. I don't think you even need the war crimes laws (after the horse has bolted) - just fully apply human rights (including positive economic rights) and the rest would follow as there'd be little reason to have wars (this won't happen from above).
 
Last edited:
parttime crackhead said:
Some ideal of how the system works? Eh, no. I never even hinted at that.

I was just quoting that to show that cunts at the top of the Khmer Rouge have just been done for war crimes. They might be 900 years old, and about to die tomorrow, but do you think it's a bad thing that they've just been charged with something? Do you think it's a bad thing for their victims to know that some little tiny sliver of justice has been done?
Click to expand...

I think its an incredibly bad thing that some of the worst atrocities of the 20th century, killing 25% of your own population and psychologically destroying most of the rest, has taken so long to be prosecuted. I think its an incredibly bad thing that a lot of the Khmer Rouge have actually been in government ever since, supported by the West. I think the 'justice' you are hinting at is indelibly stained by such events. I think the structures for prosecuting war crimes are bizarre and largely bent in the winners, or their supporters interests.

We have spent 30-40 years fattening Cambodian corruption on the basis that country is not Vietnam. We have knowingly and willingly funded Khmer Rouge leaders in contemporary administrations of Cambodia. I just can't get excited about 40 year old crumbs off the table.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top