Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ...
9
10
11
12
13
... LastLast
  1. #201
    Quote Originally Posted by Deadvolcanoes View Post
    If not CWC, then certainly through the genocide convention, we would be legally obligated to act.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convent...me_of_Genocide
    Rebels don't fall under the definition of a "group" under genocide convention. Exterminating the rebellion using WMD might not be an optimal route to follow, but its a far cry from genocide.

  2. #202
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashnazg View Post
    Rebels don't fall under the definition of a "group" under genocide convention. Exterminating the rebellion using WMD might not be an optimal route to follow, but its a far cry from genocide.
    A WMD doesn't discriminate between rebels and civilians.

  3. #203
    Pit Lord Doktor Faustus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    UK of Earth World & Northern Fat Land
    Posts
    2,420
    Meh, same intel that said there were WMD's in Iraq?

    I'm taking this with a pinch of salt the size of Olympus Mons.

    Also, do a bit of research on the Free Syrian Army, not very nice people either, murdering civillians too.

  4. #204
    Brewmaster soulcrusher's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    A Black Land of Sorcery and Nameless Horror
    Posts
    1,402
    great job with the links but again, there is no legal obligation on specifically the USA to act. its UN legislation. also rather interestingly the USA is itself immune from prosecution.

    Provisos granting immunity from prosecution for genocide without its consent were made by Bahrain, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, the United States, Vietnam, Yemen, and Yugoslavia

  5. #205
    Just to add, if this is true it will by no means start another world war. This is what will happen Syrian use weapon on random country X. Eu and Usa blow it off the face of p the planet. If the EU or Usa even cared to send a force to Syrian the government would be over whelmed in no time (I am willing to say in under 24 hours if the condition is serious enough and the people in charge are willing to not keep casualties on both sides to a minimum) The only problem then is russia, but I dont think they're dumb enough to try anything like a world war, and tbh they'd be taken out in no time as well.

    The worlds military might is with the USA they can stop any small scale (ie one of these countries) threats with ease, and with the EU on there side they have easy access to launch attacks.

  6. #206
    The worlds military might is with the USA they can stop any small scale (ie one of these countries) threats with ease
    That's what they said back in 2002-03. We are still in Afghanistan nearly a decade later.

  7. #207
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    A WMD doesn't discriminate between rebels and civilians.
    Indeed, but civvies are not targeted for extermination. Therefore, it does not fall under a legal definition of genocide.

  8. #208
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by soulcrusher View Post
    israel may have signed it but still dropped white phosphorus all over gaza. let the UN respond. my question to you was what "legal obligation" is there on america to act. as we both know there isnt one.
    If i remember correctly, WP is not on the list of the CWC. Feel free to check out.
    Media could be pretty histerical, like with the case of "uranium bombs" "cluster bombs" etc. Like dying from a well placed stomach wound would be any better.

    Anyway, this whole "Syria ready to use.." nonsense is pretty much hysteria again - if a military is at least half-decent, it could use its inventory according to political will. Otherwise its inly dead hardware, hardly a weapon.
    And making that decision would be suicide - not literally. For bluff, it backfires, i think. For desinformation, well... not that convincing. By occams razor i would call mediahisterobullshitbackedbyidiotgovernemntofficials.

  9. #209
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashnazg View Post
    Indeed, but civvies are not targeted for extermination. Therefore, it does not fall under a legal definition of genocide.
    I dunno, it sounds pretty close to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by UN
    "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
    PS: Many nations recognize the rebels as a national group. Therefore it can be genocide under this definition.

  10. #210
    Has anyone blamed Israel yet for the problems in Syria?

  11. #211
    Deleted
    Rebellion, revolution, civil war were never been a nice thing - one step less nicer than a "regular" war. Just think about the french revolution. Or a most recent, 56 Budapest: mass lynchings, many of the lynched wer actually innocents - they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    And Iraq were not about the WMDs, there were some serious legal backup for the intervention, however, neither the US government or the media felt that adequate, so the created some media hysteria again... nice work, really nice work.

  12. #212
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    I dunno, it sounds pretty close to me.


    PS: Many nations recognize the rebels as a national group. Therefore it can be genocide under this definition.
    Which nations? Rebels have traditionally been defined as a political group, ergo they are not protected by the convention. I can't imagine how any serious argument can be forwarded to define rebels as a national group, since they have no distinguishing characteristics from the government troops on national basis, only on political affiliation (except, obviously, in those cases where rebels rebel based on national identity - Chechens, situation in Rwanda, former Yugo, etc).

  13. #213
    Deleted
    Prepare the invasion army!

    What?

    We're running out of invasion armies?

    PREPARE THE METAL GEAR!

  14. #214
    The UK and France, and I think a few others now too.

    Not the US yet though.

  15. #215
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    I dunno, it sounds pretty close to me.


    PS: Many nations recognize the rebels as a national group. Therefore it can be genocide under this definition.
    Who deems it as genocide? It doesn't matter if 5 people think it's genocide while 20 others disagree. Is it held as a vote in the UN?
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarcasm View Post
    It's not that drugs are for people who can't handle reality. Reality is for people who can't handle drugs.

  16. #216
    Quote Originally Posted by xxf2dxx View Post
    Is it held as a vote in the UN?
    I think that's how it works, not 100% though.

    PS: I dunno if it's a security council thing or general assembly thing, but my guess is the latter.

  17. #217
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    The UK and France, and I think a few others now too.

    Not the US yet though.
    Do you have a source?

  18. #218
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashnazg View Post
    Do you have a source?
    Yes, but kinda old.

    I think a few more have recognized it since then, all I know is that the USA still hasn't.

  19. #219
    The Lightbringer Deadvolcanoes's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    3,597
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashnazg View Post
    Indeed, but civvies are not targeted for extermination. Therefore, it does not fall under a legal definition of genocide.
    I'm sorry, what makes you think Assad is only going to target the "rebels." Past actions are certainly not a good indicator.
    It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.

  20. #220
    So they piss off a bunch of people, they fight back, now they're going to prove them correct when they accuse them of human rights violations and drop nerve gas over their own citizens. Sweet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarcasm View Post
    It's not that drugs are for people who can't handle reality. Reality is for people who can't handle drugs.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •