OT: Free speech?

[sachmo]

Originally posted by dogscoff:

quote:

---

To break their will, they would almost assuredly have to commit atrocities against the soldiers of the invading army before the invading army can break the will of the people.

Then it's better to die or just give up the fight. If my country were invaded and I were fighting a guerilla resistance, I would kill enemy soldiers at every opportunity and using whatever sneaky methods were available to me, but to commit human rights abuses beyond that..?

Well, if I were to win by such methods then I would no longer be the same person at the end of it and the country would no longer be the same country I had tried to defend. It would not be a worthwhile victory.

Maybe I would feel differently if I were in that situation, but that wouldn't make it right.

---

I hear you, Dogscoff. I certainly wouldn't want to find out.
Maybe that's why they say war changes people. I'll have to ponder that.

[Renegade 13]

I have to say that I've thought about this subject quite a bit. And I've come to the conclusion that if my home country was invaded, I would kill enemy soldiers at any opportunity, while remaining hidden, if possible. However, I would not force them to suffer before they died. Their death would be clean and (relatively) painless. A quick shot.

Now that might sound a little scary to some of you, but I would do whatever it took to protect my friends and family....within limits. It is not worth degrading and dehumanizing yourself to expel an enemy from your homeland. In the end, you would end up being a worse person than if you had died.

Personally, I would rather die than commit atrocities against any other human being.

[PvK]

Like many such "moral" questions, the reason for doing the right thing is often not just "to be good" or even "to be able to live with oneself".

In this example, commiting attrocities as the occupied underdog resistance fighter may be very likely to result in terrible retribution upon one's own people (a typical historical result) - likely worse than non-attrocious resistance would. When the enemy has your people at their mercy, it's not the best time to play "who can inflict the worst attrocities". Even if somehow the enemy would not reciprocate, the tactical value of attrocity is often minimal, or even negative. In fact, a common and ancient propaganda technique (though also, not a wise one in the end) is to lie about the attrocities of the enemy, to promote fearlessness and determination in one's own people.

PvK

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by primitive:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dogscoff:
.
.
To whoever pointed out that neither Hitler nor Stalin came from their own countries: Keep your eye on Schwarzenegger.
.

---

It may sound 'cute' now, but if they start the process to amend the Constitution so foreign-born people can be President it'll be paranoia time.

[Renegade 13]

Hmm....A Canadian president....I can see possibilities here....

THAT COULD BE ME!! BE AFRAID, BE VERY VERY VERY AFRAID!!!

[Randallw]

Originally posted by dogscoff:

To whoever pointed out that neither Hitler nor Stalin came from their own countires: Keep your eye on Schwarzenegger.

Ok, but since I am neither American let alone californian and I would have voted for him anyway I am not particularly worried.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Originally posted by Renegade 13:
Hmm....A Canadian president....I can see possibilities here....

THAT COULD BE ME!! BE AFRAID, BE VERY VERY VERY AFRAID!!!

'And so in closing, on this, the Last day of my term, I'm surrendering the United States of America to Canada...'

Nah. I would never do that. You can let me be president. Really.