How do you define a war crime?

Author: TheGreatSunGod

Posts

Total: 63
Topic's author
#31
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 720
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
Since I specified politicians not those that support them your false equivalency fails
No. You said:
"A nation should not survive for example if they don't believe in values like free speech or in capitalism"

"Then you may ask. What about temporary restrictions in freedom. Then you temporarily lose your right to exist and when it comes time to expand freedom, those who restricted it, even if it resulted in saving the country should be executed for treason."

So again, running from your own words.

But anyway, whats the difference? If reducing freedom is a crime which deserves to be punished by death, why would you limit punishment to politicians? You would still anyway need to fight the masses which support them. So if masses support reducing freedom, which in many cases is the case, much more often than not, you would have to fight them all.
#32
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,635
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
It's silly to sit here and argue "well does a rapist or a serial killer have the moral high ground". I don't care neither have the right to exist and so if one dominates and kills the other it's a good thing because now we are down to one piece of shit

nice
#33
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 7,828
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
But anyway, whats the difference? If reducing freedom is a crime which deserves to be punished by death, why would you limit punishment to politicians?
Because they decide policy. People who voted them do not directly determine policy and no I am not running from what I said. 

I said those nations have no right to exist and that policy makers are at fault and should be treated as treasonous you than are either retarded and did not know that citizens are not politicians or are acting like a retard.
Topic's author
#34
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 720
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
Because they decide policy. People who voted them do not directly determine policy
This is a very stupid statement. If people wanted full freedom, they would simply vote for politicians who give that. People too decide the policy.

I said those nations have no right to exist and that policy makers are at fault and should be treated as treasonous
So who has no right to exist: nations or policy makers?

You contradict yourself in each comment. Maybe make up your mind.

you than are either retarded and did not know that citizens are not politicians
The problem is that your original claim was about countries, nations and people, and now you are changing it to only politicians, which again happen to be given those powers by the people, people who in most cases are against full freedom, thus people again being the main cause and politicians just being the result.

So again, what is your logic here?

You ran away from "those who are against full freedom shouldnt exist" and replaced it with "politicians who are against full freedom shouldnt exist", which again doesnt work because people would still be against full freedom even without those politicians.

And you make false dichotomy between "liberty" and "no liberty".

No country on Earth has full liberty.

There are degrees of liberty, and I dont think politicians who fined you for saying "nigger" deserve death penalty.
#35
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,919
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
… by numbers…
Do you view each act as equal in severity? Such as:

Rape
Intentional killing of a civilian
Unintentional killing of a civilian
Torture
Torturing, then killing a civilian
Executing a prisoner
Taking a hostage
Using a human shield
Mutilating a corpse


Topic's author
#36
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 720
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@cristo71
Do you view each act as equal in severity? Such as:

Rape
Intentional killing of a civilian
Unintentional killing of a civilian
Torture
Torturing, then killing a civilian
Executing a prisoner
Taking a hostage
Using a human shield
Mutilating a corpse
Israel has done all those, but when it comes to numbers, it clearly shows.

For example, Hamas killed about 700 civilians and 300 soldiers during their attack. So 70% of people Hamas killed were civilians.

But Israel killed about 10000 Hamas fighters, while killing over 50000 civilians.

So over 80% of people Israel kills are civilians.

Also, in total number, Israel killed 70 times more civilians than Hamas did.

As for other crimes, I already covered that in my debate called "Israel's war crimes are worse than Hamas's war crimes.
Topic's author
#37
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 720
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@cristo71
This  debate covers it in greater details:

#38
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 2,923
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@WyIted
It's silly to sit here and argue "well does a rapist or a serial killer have the moral high ground".
Except in this case, there are significant geopolitical consequences to whether Ukraine or Russia wins. And the more fair comparison would be a serial killer who kills 10 people vs. one who kills 1,000 people.
#39
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,635
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Savant
victor lex facit, vae victis

Except in this case, there are significant geopolitical consequences to whether Ukraine or Russia wins.
That's misinformation. If it had any real significance, Europeans would have ended the 2014 civil war with boots on the ground. You seem to believe the corporate media narrative that this is "the most important war since WWII." If that were really true, Germany, France, and Britain would have been in Donetsk immediately in 2014, long before Russia asserted sovereignty over Donbas, instead of blithely issuing sternly worded letters and scary talking points for over a decade.
#40
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,379
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Civilians are the back bone of any war machine. Without them there is no war machine to fight a war.
Topic's author
#41
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 720
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@sadolite
Civilians are the back bone of any war machine. Without them there is no war machine to fight a war.
Yes, but such position suffers from probability argument when it comes to what people support.

There are 3 options:
1. Israel military is good and Hamas military is bad.
2. Israel military is bad and Hamas military is good.
3. Israel military is bad and Hamas military is bad.

In only 1 out of 3 cases is Israel military considered good. This is because person doesnt need to consider Hamas as good in order to consider Israel military bad.

You may be stuck in dichotomy where "If Hamas bad, then Israel good", but when it comes to many people, they are not choosing between these two. They will say that both are bad, and due to this high probability, Israel loses allies and loses support it needs.

The main problem in Israel's war crimes is that Israel for some reason assumed its war crimes will be compared to Hamas's and thus be justified. But that is a terrible mistake, because war crimes dont stop being war crimes if both sides do them. It doesnt make any side good. It makes both sides bad, and this is what Israel failed to understand from the start.
#42
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 7,828
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Savant
Except in this case, there are significant geopolitical consequences to whether Ukraine or Russia wins
If this were true why do the only arguments I hear center around "it's unethical to invade" and not center around the disadvantages to the rest of the free world if Ukraine loses?

I literally only hear please to mortality and none that have anything to do with Realpolitik when I pop on CNN
#43
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 2,923
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@WyIted
If this were true why do the only arguments I hear center around "it's unethical to invade"
I agree, that's not really a great argument on its own. Ukraine is the world's meat shield right now, and their male population is being sacrificed to deter future invasions. Whether that's justified depends on how utilitarian you are. A bit ironic that Russia played this role in World War II against the Nazis but didn't realize the West would use Ukraine against them in the same way.
#44
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 7,828
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Savant
Theres no point. We are better off allying with them and removing them as an allie of China so we can escape the Euclidian trap.
#45
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 2,923
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@WyIted
removing them as an allie of China
Yeah because the country currently invading Ukraine would be a trustworthy ally lol. You want to trade all of America's other allies (including the countries bordering the US) for Putin?

Euclidian trap
Do you mean Thucydides Trap?
#46
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 7,828
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Savant
Yeah because the country currently invading Ukraine would be a trustworthy ally lol. You want to trade all of America's other allies (including the countries bordering the US) for Putin?
What no they can be his allies as well. Yes it's n his best interest to be a good Allie, just do a cost benefit analysis to see why

Do you mean Thucydides Trap?
Yes
#47
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 2,923
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@WyIted
they can be his allies as well
Most NATO countries don't want to be allied with Russia, and America allying with Russia will likely push them away. At best America could stay neutral, but it would lose its status as the "leader of the free world."
#48
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 2,923
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Greyparrot
That's misinformation. If it had any real significance, Europeans would have ended the 2014 civil war with boots on the ground.
They can fund Ukraine's weaponry, so there's no need for boots on the ground.

You seem to believe the corporate media narrative that this is "the most important war since WWII."
I didn't say that, though. The implications are mostly economic.
#49
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 7,828
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Savant
Why wouldn't they want more allies? There is two ways to defeat an enemy and the easiest way is to befriend them.
#50
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,635
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Savant
I didn't say that, though. The implications are mostly economic.
Fair enough. And the lack of boots screams of insignificance.
#51
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,635
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Savant
but it would lose its status as the "leader of the free world."
Judging by the present loss of liberty in NATO countries, I would say USA already lost that status long ago.
#52
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 2,923
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Greyparrot
@WyIted
Why wouldn't they want more allies?
Because Russia has shown an interest in invading other counties, and them allying outwardly with the US does not mean they will stop. It means the US will likely continue to enable them.

Judging by the present loss of liberty in NATO countries, I would say USA already lost that status long ago.
Optics matter. If the US does not support Ukraine's defense, it's seen as a less reliable ally.
#53
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,635
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Savant
Optics matter. If the US does not support Ukraine's defense, it's seen as a less reliable ally.
That may be true, but irrelevant when we are growing closer to the adage: "With allies like these, who needs enemies?"
#54
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 2,923
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Greyparrot
irrelevant when we are growing closer to the adage: "With allies like these, who needs enemies?"
Russia is invading Ukraine, and they will fund America's enemies at the first opportunity. The standard for a preferable ally to Putin is a very low bar to clear.
#55
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,635
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Savant
Fund our enemies such as Germany?

This is what I am talking about.
#56
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 7,828
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Savant
Optics matter. If the US does not support Ukraine's defense, it's seen as a less reliable ally.
Who gives a shit? Their view of us literally has zero effect on us

Because Russia has shown an interest in invading other counties, and them allying outwardly with the US does not mean they will stop. It means the US will likely continue to enable them.
From a cost benefit analysis it makes no sense to do that if it risks powerful allies and trade deals. 

You are dealing with smart logical people not emotional wersterners who want tampons in meds rooms.
#57
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 2,923
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Greyparrot
@WyIted
Fund our enemies such as Germany?
Enemies in the Middle East and countries like China. The current invasion and how the West deals with it sets a big precedent that will likely influence China's actions toward Taiwan. And the world relies on Taiwan for semiconductors.

Who gives a shit? Their view of us literally has zero effect on us
It matters a lot for economic deals and free trade agreements.
#58
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 7,828
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Savant
 China's actions toward Taiwan. And the world relies on Taiwan for semiconductors.
Well then that effects us if we depend on semiconductors. We should make it clear they get nukes if they make a move. Ukraine though whether it stays or not has zero effect
#59
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,384
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
The main problem in Israel's war crimes is that Israel for some reason assumed its war crimes will be compared to Hamas's and thus be justified. But that is a terrible mistake, because war crimes dont stop being war crimes if both sides do them. It doesnt make any side good. It makes both sides bad, and this is what Israel failed to understand from the start.
The Jews do not recognize or accept war crimes. 6 million Jews were killed during the Holocaust before it was even considered a crime to kill Jews.
#60
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 2,923
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@WyIted
Ukraine though whether it stays or not has zero effect
The US needs ally support to defend Taiwan, and supporting Ukraine increases trust.