Conquer Club

This topic was discussed in another topic but the whole discussion disappeared when the server crashed. So I start a new. We discuss whether torture, rape etc. (all the fun bits of medieval war ) are acceptable in modern war. Please, maintain the high academic and intellectual level of the discussion. Dont just it is bad because your mom would be cross...

Let us observe first that there are no god given rules of war. As far as I know, Christ or Buddhas were not interested in the military aspect of humanity. As a result, the bible or Buddhist suttras dont contain any relevant information. The prophet was much more into it, hence, the qur'an is more useful but still the scholars cannot completely on what the interpretation of relevant verses should be. I dont know much about induism and sikhsim but I imagine they would not be very useful either.

With the absence of divine revelation, the rules of war are essentially a social contract. The rules of modern war such as Geneva convention, etc. have roots from the 18-th century Europe. Artillery made cities vulnerable and castles obsolete, and small armies could not protect them. The resulting rules of war were completely rational, protecting cities and infrastructure. They were more or less followed by European powers, with an exception of air raids in WW-2 and a few rogue states throughout the history.

However, are these rules applicable in the modern war, in particular, the war of terror There is definitely no rational to sticking to it as the enemy is not. And this is well understood by pentagon strategists as well!! This is why we see Guantanamo Bay and Abu Grail. It is pity that elected politicians dont have a courage to admit it openly

You're forgetting the political/ethical side, we attach great importance to these things called "human rights", it's generally accepted that not being tortured is such a right. These rights come with a claim of being universal, of applying to all humans. If you then go and point to people you yourself (or your associates) have labelled terrorists and say that because they are terrorists they do not have these human rights even though they're human the universalism is gone. China can then legitimately claim that it needs not at all observe any conventions regarding human rights it doesn't want to because human rights are a western invention and doesn't at all apply to their cultural sphere. And of course human rights are being observed in islamic countries as long as people obey the Sharia to the letter, and if human rights and Sharia conflict, well obviously the Sharia is inspired by the Qur'an which is the word of god and therefore much higher.
If you want to retain a chance of promoting human rights world-wide you have to lead by example, there's no other way because it's a philosophical quagmire.

This is also important for the wider situation, whenever the USA or any country fighting in "the war on terror" commits an atrocity the other "terrorist" side can point to that and say "look, we were right, they really are the great satan". It's perfect propaganda for the enemy.


And then there's the question of reliability, if inflict enough pain to someone they will confess to being the killer of Kennedy, but it won't necessarily be true. And what about this guy who keeps telling you he doesn't know anything and you've got the wrong guy even though you're breaking his fingers one by one. Is he just extremely resilient or do you really have the wrong guy?


I could go on but I gtg.

MeDeFe wrote:we attach great importance to these things called "human rights".

Are you serious? They are an obsolete remainder of the cold war. They were invented the minute after the last plate "whites only" was removed in USofA with the only purpose of putting political pressure on ruskies to let the jews and dissidents out. What is the use in them, anyway when the coalition of the willing is bringing democracy and prosperity...

And seriously, if someone from Netherlands or Denmark talks about human rights, people can take it seriously but with countries like USA executing its citizens and Ireland where abortion is illegal, it just makes people laugh BTW, I did notice that you are from Germany, you, guyz, are not even part of the coalition of the willing

I dont think human rights can be disregarded so easily, in the context of the current conflict. If we are going to posit that there is a coalition of the willing bringing anything at all (in this case democracy and prosperity as is claimed) then there must be a basis that people have a right to these things. Unless we are not doing them to serve the interests of those people at all, which of course is possible. If this war is to be spun in any kind of positive light (which at times is pretty difficult to do) you cannot disregard the importance of doing things the right way or for the right reasons. Either that or you change the way you operationalize success in light of the current war on terror.

kletka wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:we attach great importance to these things called "human rights".

Are you serious? They are an obsolete remainder of the cold war. They were invented the minute after the last plate "whites only" was removed in USofA with the only purpose of putting political pressure on ruskies to let the jews and dissidents out. What is the use in them, anyway when the coalition of the willing is bringing democracy and prosperity...

This statement is so blatantly false that I am now convinced that you're a troll and I will not give you the satisfaction of arguing any further.

MeDeFe wrote:

kletka wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:we attach great importance to these things called "human rights".

Are you serious? They are an obsolete remainder of the cold war...

This statement is so blatantly false that I am now convinced that you're a troll and I will not give you the satisfaction of arguing any further.

I am so sad ... Off course, it is a slight exaggeration, I know all this nonsense about Magna Carta and Universal Declaration, as well as the general philosophical issues. However, I stick to my point that the modern interpretation of human rights (that is really tracked to 1948 declaration) outlived its usefullness. Its main usage, at least in UK, is for various unsavoury characters (murderers, drug traffickers, child molesters) to avoid extradiction to their home countries on the basis that they would be hanged there...

And no reason to call me names

When you are in combat, there are no rules.

You kill or you die.

F*ck the "rules".

Trust me.....

Iz Man wrote:When you are in combat, there are no rules.

You kill or you die.

F*ck the "rules".

Trust me.....

I agree. But we aren't talking about combat, we are talking about humanity, and apathy.


My point before, KLETKA, about the rapes, and child tortures that happened at ABU. There is no reason to rape someone for 'possible intelligence.' Ever. Why wouldn't they in the least resort to regular torture? The very fact that you have an erection evidences to me that you are not thinking of Uncle Sam, you are a sadist. Rapists go to prison, period.

And it is never ok to torture an innocent child. EVER. Even to get 'possible intelligence' from the father. It is never ok to torture an innocent person. Again, if you do, you are a sadist. I don't see how you can argue in favor of such things......

You don't work for the CIA do you?

It's hard to respect these "rules of war" when your opponent doesn't. The rules of war say don't shoot women, children, and,or civilians. But while we respect this rule, the opponents are giving children guns, and strapping bombs to women. All to attack us unexpectedly.

Also by following the "rules of war" is why Brittan lost the US

When my uncle was in Korea, this little sick kid came to the door of their camp asking for medicine. As soon as they took him inside, the kid pulled out a pistol and shot 3 US solders dead

shadowsteel9 wrote:It's hard to respect these "rules of war" when your opponent doesn't. The rules of war say don't shoot women, children, and,or civilians. But while we respect this rule, the opponents are giving children guns, and strapping bombs to women. All to attack us unexpectedly.

Also by following the "rules of war" is why Brittan lost the US

When my uncle was in Korea, this little sick kid came to the door of their camp asking for medicine. As soon as they took him inside, the kid pulled out a pistol and shot 3 US solders dead

So this justifies us brutalizing people? What are we without some semblance of morality in the end?

The only relevant rule of war is Win at all costs.By torturing, killing, rape, and denying humans thier rights your spreading terror and making the enemy afraid.More problems throughout history have been solved by violence than by any other method

Frigidus wrote:

shadowsteel9 wrote:It's hard to respect these "rules of war" when your opponent doesn't. The rules of war say don't shoot women, children, and,or civilians. But while we respect this rule, the opponents are giving children guns, and strapping bombs to women. All to attack us unexpectedly.

Also by following the "rules of war" is why Brittan lost the US

When my uncle was in Korea, this little sick kid came to the door of their camp asking for medicine. As soon as they took him inside, the kid pulled out a pistol and shot 3 US solders dead

So this justifies us brutalizing people? What are we without some semblance of morality in the end?

My point was that it's hard to tell what's moral in war, because so much of it is incincere

So many backward statements in this thread already that it has me not even wanting to bother rebutting.

naxus wrote:The only relevant rule of war is Win at all costs.By torturing, killing, rape, and denying humans thier rights your spreading terror and making the enemy afraid.More problems throughout history have been solved by violence than by any other method

While your obviously a troll (and possibly being sarcastic, at that) this thinking is too prevalent and soberly accepted in society to ignore as such.

If we terrorize the populace of the country we have "liberated", what will we have won? A land populated by people that alternately fears and hates us? The reason occupations fail is because no military operating on a limited budget can defeat a revolution that has the hearts and minds of the people. The reason occupations succeed is that the people come around to the belief that you as the occupier are the morally superior force. By using inhuman methods to keep them down you're only increasing the ideological divide between the people of Iraq (I assume we're talking about Iraq, although other conflicts are very relevant) and the occupying military.

Iz Man wrote:When you are in combat, there are no rules.
You kill or you die...

Mate, have you ever seen combat apart from TV? To be honest I did not but I did serve in the military. Certainly, there are rules: you must obey orders and follow military codes. There are so many freacking rules. For instance, if you are in US army, disloyal statements, abusing public animal, adultery, bigamy, bribery and graft, drinking liquor with prisoner, fleeing scene of accident, fraternization, gambling with subordinate are all crimes under article 134 of UCMJ.

There are good reasons why general military have these rules! But this is why all advanced military forces have special forces with their own secret codes who are trained in interrogation, torture etc. For instance, USSR had NKVD, nazis had SS, and USA has CIA...

spurgistan wrote:If we terrorize the populace of the country we have "liberated", what will we have won? A land populated by people that alternately fears and hates us? The reason occupations fail is because no military operating on a limited budget can defeat a revolution that has the hearts and minds of the people. The reason occupations succeed is

Liberation, occupation, conquest are synonims only showing your personal view of the event. In 1979 USSR occupied Afganistan but in 2001 USA liberated it Concerning Iraq, even a child understands that baathists kept the country away from mullahs. There is no third political force. US got rid of baathists and all of them hate you. All mullahs hate you by default. So the new president, hopefully Osama, will just have to choose whether to hand the country over to mullahs or to baathists. The latter will take a little while as Baath Party will need some time to become the force it used to be...

And "hearts and minds business" is a BS that is fed to american electorate for electoral gains. Tell me of one historical occupation which succeded by winning hearts and minds!! It is either subjugating the territory by sword and fire or bribing n existing native political force to support you...

radiojake wrote:So many backward statements in this thread already that it has me not even wanting to bother rebutting.

most if not all are probably trolls. Or

kletka wrote:

Iz Man wrote:When you are in combat, there are no rules.
You kill or you die...

Mate, have you ever seen combat apart from TV?

Yes I have........mate

kletka wrote:And "hearts and minds business" is a BS that is fed to american electorate for electoral gains. Tell me of one historical occupation which succeded by winning hearts and minds!! It is either subjugating the territory by sword and fire or bribing n existing native political force to support you...

This depends on perspective. For example, I could point to East Germany, or even Japan after WWII. Where we did have strong support.
The historical aspect is unfair, because the notion of winning hearts and minds is a fairly new idea(in wide a practice), in historical context.
Ultimatly, historicaly, it has always been 'to the victor go the spoils.'

In this regard, allow me to ask how many occupations have lasted?

You can subjugate a people, but never without their permission.

Iz Man wrote:Yes I have........mate

Thank you very much for your service.

Occupations usually fail because of the attacker following the rules of war.By winning over there hearts you get screwed because they trick and decieve you.By negoating they cheat you, and by Sword they fear and hate you.If you want to make a occupation to work then you need to get the guys in power locally on your side and kill those that oppose you.

Well in the middle of a Firefight, there are no rules, its basically "do or die"


But honestly there cannot be rules of war if every country doesn't follow it. And when they do we can't call it war anymore.

The best thing to do is to get rid of all our weapons to live in peace.

Juan_Bottom wrote: In this regard, allow me to ask how many occupations have lasted?

You can subjugate a people, but never without their permission.

Quite a few actually! Romans were superb at making occupations last. Closer to home, look at russians in Chechnya: it goes on for 170 years or so with just 4 major uprisings, all crushed...

Iz Man wrote:Yes I have........mate

Respect!!

fireedud wrote:Well in the middle of a Firefight, there are no rules, its basically "do or die"

Incorrect, there are rules . You still have to obey the orders. You cannot leave your position or self-harm you. And there are various rules on engaging targets. For instance, if you see an enemy helicopter, you must leave all your targets and engage the helicopter with all available means.

fireedud wrote:The best thing to do is to get rid of all our weapons to live in peace.

After you convince the terrorists, murderers, and genocidal dictators to do that, then you might be able to convince the civilized world to do the same.

Ray Rider wrote:After you convince the terrorists, murderers, and genocidal dictators to do that, then you might be able to convince the civilized world to do the same.

Yeah!! I totally agree that it is hard to convince Bush and Brown...

kletka wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

fireedud wrote:Well in the middle of a Firefight, there are no rules, its basically "do or die"

Incorrect, there are rules . You still have to obey the orders. You cannot leave your position or self-harm you. And there are various rules on engaging targets. For instance, if you see an enemy helicopter, you must leave all your targets and engage the helicopter with all available means.

There is a distinct difference between "rules of engagement" and "rules of war".
Rules of engagement (can't fire unless fired upon, your helo example, etc.) are administered to a particular armed force by its commanders. Typically these rules of engagement are administered due to political pressures and always lead to a huge disadvantage to those that abide by them (i.e Iraq & Vietnam). When an armed force (Army, Navy, AF, etc.) is "allowed" to unleash its entire fury, it is sure to benefit those on the "giving" end, and be quite detrimental to those on the receiving end. The elimination of rules of engagement in the long term (according to many military historians) actually decrease the number of "unwanted" casualties by bringing an end to the conflict quicker (i.e. Hiroshima & Nagasaki).
Rules of war apply to all "sides". These can be found in the Geneva convention articles. e.g.: One is not allowed to shoot at infantry with .50cal or larger ammunition, surrender flags should not be fired upon, parachutes cannot be fired upon, etc.

During a firefight, both rules of engagement and rules of war are not at the top of the list in terms of the thought process of those in combat.

During the Persian Gulf War (Desert Storm), I didn't have a problem shooting at Iraqi gunboats who were stupid enough to attack a U.S. Cruiser with our 25mm chain guns and .50cals. This included not just the boats, but their pilots and gunners. Take out the pilot, the boat is out of control; take out the gunner, he won't shoot at you.
This "technically" violated the rules of war; but I'm here gabbing on an internet forum, and those Iraqi's are hangin' out with Davey Jones.

I'd much rather be gabbin' with all you fine people.....

naxus wrote:Occupations usually fail because of the attacker following the rules of war.By winning over there hearts you get screwed because they trick and decieve you.By negoating they cheat you, and by Sword they fear and hate you.If you want to make a occupation to work then you need to get the guys in power locally on your side and kill those that oppose you.

If you want an occupation to work -yes I know I'm about to sound like a heartless bastard, get over it- you need to kill every last one of the occupants of the territory that you are trying to occupy. If they can one day raise a weapon against you or raise someone who can, you kill them. If you've done this, your occupation can be very successful.