/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16348553]

>war crimes
You literally have no penis if you believe in this

[Anonymous No.16348572]

>>16348553
Read the Rome Statute

[Anonymous No.16348574]

Ahhh boo boo, ahh pee pee pooo pooo, hoo hoo ? Goo gooo, zo zo do do he he

[Anonymous No.16348586]

>war crimes based on human rights? Not for me
>but crimes against the fundamental nature of war and the spiritual struggle it entails? Those are unforgiveable

[Anonymous No.16348588]

>>16348574
kinda this

>>16348553
Dont be contrarian op. war crimeslike everything else, is a relative categorization. its not a mater of belieiving or not believing it. it is simply a matter of understanding why some people believe in it and some do not.

[Anonymous No.16348658]

>>16348553
The whole thing was just invented so they could be dicks to the Axis, the idea of international law is completely fucking retarded, who is going to enforce it lmao

[Anonymous No.16348681]

>>16348658
wasnt it a thing before then though? and even when not officially, there was usually laws of propriety between powers since at least the middle-late 1700s.

[Anonymous No.16348684]

>>16348574
baste

[Anonymous No.16348689]

>>16348553
I literally have a penis no matter what you say, pepefrog.

>>16348658
You're historically illiterate. Both Christians and Muslims developed theories of the Just War in the Middle Ages, which put constraints on what you could do in war even for a worthy cause.
There were also rules of engagement already in Ancient Greece. Breaking them was considered extremely barbaric.

[Anonymous No.16348705]

>>16348689
tbf, he probably meant in the proper legal sense rather than simply cultural justification and implicit understanding. But even then, international law was in effect since the late 1700s.

[Anonymous No.16348737]

>>16348689
>which put constraints on what you could do in war even for a worthy cause.
yeah Im sure the soldiers followed those rules and it's only in recent years that they decided to stop

[Anonymous No.16348844]

>>16348658
my professor had a joke about this, it went
>you want to hear a joke?
>international law

[Anonymous No.16348853]

>>16348844
wouldnt international convention be more accurate? seeing as by its very nature, no law is all that binding?

[Anonymous No.16348855]

>>16348658
Leviathan

[Anonymous No.16348861]

>>16348737
You could say the same about war crimes today. Really doesn't change the fact that rules of engagement are not an invention of the modern.
Also the Greek certainly followed their own rules to a nonsignificant extent.
It's harder to say for Christians and Muslims since their theories were a late addition to warrior culture that had prospered without them, but judging how much more disciplined the aristocrats were in the 1800s then during the Middle Age, i'd say some of it paid off.

>>16348705
I think the Just War theories were relatively codified and were certainly explicit to an extent, I don't know however how binding they were. That's a good remark.

[Anonymous No.16348868]

War crimes? How can there be war crimes when there hasn’t been a war?

[Anonymous No.16348886]

>>16348553
what if you're the victim? you may want justification to respond in kind and via international courts get revenge on the perpetrator

[Anonymous No.16348887]

>>16348553
Same with human rights. It’s a meme. I only recognize the Laws of Nature

[Anonymous No.16348897]

>>16348553
Can you retarded /pol/ fags please fuck right off? Jesus. Actual quality threads about literature are being archived for this shit.

[Anonymous No.16348926]

>>16348861
>I don't know however how binding they were.
not very. they gave a modus operandi that was stronger than most previous ones, but most wars were still casus belli affairs. also Just war was more about what makes a war just, rather than codifying specific nationally recognised laws of conduct. like what to do with prisoners. what happens if prisoners were not treated a specific way etc. It was a major development, but it wasnt nearly as legalistic.

[Anonymous No.16348939]

>>16348689
Imagine being this spooked.

[Anonymous No.16348956]

>>16348553
I believe they exist.
I also believe they are a good thing to outlaw on paper.
However, I also recognize that this is nothing more than an ideal, and the nature of war is doing anything to win. I also recognize that its basically an excuse for a hypocritical winner (who also employed similar tactics) to punish the loser.

[Anonymous No.16348969]

>>16348939
....thats not being spooked anon. he was talking about conventions that existed, not that he thought they were real tangable things.

[Anonymous No.16348976]

>>16348969
The preface implies he subscribes to them. Hadn't he said it, needn't I had had replied.

[Anonymous No.16348984]

>>16348976
oh yah.

[Anonymous No.16349036]

>>16348553
Crimes aren't real.

[Anonymous No.16349068]

>>16348553
War crimes are the right of the victor to impose their hegemony onto the loser. To try the leaders of another nation by the laws of your land is the ultimate act of dominance and submission; a complete denuding of their sovereign power. It is everything short of annexation. Proverbial castration. The symbolism is as powerful as when the revolutionaries tried Louis XVI like a petty criminal and dispatched of him like one. The dream of all nations is to extend their laws and customs across the world—to affirm the universality of these these principles by making all bow to them.
There's a reason why the right to police in another nations borders always precedes outright annexation; if a sovereign power is not the ultima ratio of law in his own land, he isn't sovereign at all. By creating international laws and courts, you are all but saying 'the world is mine'.
Rather than no penis, 'war crimes' in fact demonstrates your colossal wang and ability to put it in whatever hole you please.

[Anonymous No.16349092]

>>16349068
I just read the wiki article on the Japanese constitution. USA legally cucked them harder than I’ve ever seen. And I’ve read buck v bell

[Anonymous No.16349094]

American hands wrote OPs post.

[Anonymous No.16349104]

>>16349092
We really did. We fucked them up so bad they started selling panties in vending machines. It's like we neutered them. Though when one considers the current state of affairs and the past 60 years, from an objective standpoint they won out, and will probably continue to develop as the premier first world country while we sink into total irrelevancy.

[Anonymous No.16349107]

>>16349104
it depends on whether the 'international community' convinces them to let in mass immigration or not

[Anonymous No.16349109]

I think the main thing most people forget during Middle Ages is the suffering of the horses

[Anonymous No.16349124]

>>16349107
Underneath their extremely polite exterior beat the hearts of pure genocidal rage. Not like Americuck genocide, real all out genocide. As in considering kidnapping your kid and raping her for her entire life doing her a favor genocide. They were doing that shit less than a hundred years ago. And their chimp outs make ours look playground hairpulling by comparison.

[Anonymous No.16349130]

>>16348926
Okay, I thought it was still a bit stronger than that. I even heard that apparently Bin Laden's top legal scholar disagreed with the idea of the 9/11 attacks because he thought such a number of dead with no direct relationship to the military couldn't be justified under Islamic law.

[Anonymous No.16349132]

>>16349107
I would love to be the handsome 6'3 american in a suit that can barely speak Japanese for a company over there. The infrastructure is based and cozy. Their women are more attractive and fit. Their variant of capitalism is at least entertaining. And also fresh fish. God damn.

[Anonymous No.16349140]

>>16348976
If you're talking about my penis, it exists regardless of anyone's opinion about war, much like a Platonic form.
(>therefore it doesn't existence in this plane of existence)

[Anonymous No.16349148]

>>16349068
This guy knows.
t. Knower.

[Anonymous No.16349154]

>>16349132
To be fair Japan is probably a nice place to live if you're a white westerner. People are racist (in the laid-back, old-school way of treating you differently depending on your color, not necessarily with lengthy racial theories) but their racism tends to be in your favor. You get to enjoy their high degree of sophistication and technology while not being entirely subject to the social and spiritual grinding machine that is modern day corporate Japan.

[Anonymous No.16349156]

>>16349132
Im sure it would be nice but you would always be the outsider, that must get old.

[Anonymous No.16349191]

>>16349154
They're not flamboyantly racist because they encounter so few whites. They have no individual perception of the race as a whole. Whites work like everyone else over there.

If there were only 1-2% of all Americans that were black and not somewhere around 15%, even if they were twice as stupid on average as they are now most people wouldn't feel any racial inclination toward them at all.

[Anonymous No.16349201]

>>16349156
Don't act like a faggot in their country and you'll probably be fine. They probably invite you everywhere they normally go and don't even mind you dating over there as long as you aren't acting like a loud obnoxious heavy breathing faggot.

[Anonymous No.16349215]

>>16349201
>>16349191
>>16349156
>>16349154
Too bad I'm poor and in coronastan. It would be nice to start fresh.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16349260]

>>16348553
>Ya gotta vote fer Biden. You don’t want the uther guy again do ya?

[Anonymous No.16349501]

>>16349260
huh?

[Anonymous No.16349526]

Imagine having a war being such a shitshow of carnage and horror that a group of barbarians have to establish ground rules. WW1 was a fucking literal nightmare and I’m glad I was never in it.

[Anonymous No.16349655]

>>16349104
>>16349092
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Japan#Drafting_process
>Prime Minister Shidehara had suggested to MacArthur that the new Constitution should contain an article renouncing war.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kij%C5%ABr%C5%8D_Shidehara
>He was a leading proponent of pacifism in Japan before and after World War II

The pacifist doctrine of the Japanese was due to the Japanese themselves.
They got so autistic with it that even though America has been pressuring Japan to remilitarize and assist American anti-Soviet efforts and American imperialism all they've done is provide bases and supplies but never real manpower. The Japanese public do not want to remilitarize but their politicians supported massively by the American militarists are forcing them to.

[Anonymous No.16349810]

>>16348553
>post-op trans women can't into war crimes

[Anonymous No.16349917]

>You're imprisoned at The Hague.
>Good.

[Anonymous No.16349963]

>>16349191
>They have no individual perception of the race as a whole.
Seems to be in line with what my black friend tol me. He lives in Japan, and outside of work he's treated a bit like a unicorn (people even ask him to take photograph with them).
To be fair he's over six foot tall, so he's pretty much a mythological being by japanese standards.

>Whites work like everyone else over there.
Sure but are they expected to socialize the way Japanese are? It seems to me that is were most of the depression and neetdom comes from.

[Anonymous No.16350223]

>>16349068
reminds me of what morgenthau said about why wars of ideology are more destructive than wars of realpolitik
>The majority, however, in order to overcome that conflict identifies the morality of a particular nation with the commands of supranational ethics. It pours, as it were, the contents of a particular national morality into the now empty bottle of universal ethics. So each nation comes to know again a universal morality--that is, its own national morality--which is taken to be the one that all the other nations ought to accept as their own. The universality of an ethics to which all nations adhere is replaced by the particularity of national ethics that claims the right to, and aspires toward, universal recognition.
>Nations no longer oppose one another within the framework of shared beliefs and common values, which imposes effective limitations upon the ends and means of their struggle for power. They oppose one another now as the standard-bearers of ethical systems, each of them of national origin and each of them claiming and aspiring to provide a supranational framework of moral standards that all the other nations ought to accept within which their foreign policies ought to operate. The moral code of one nation flings the challenge of its universal claim with messianic fervor into the face of another, which reciprocates in kind. Compromise, the virtue of old diplomacy, becomes the treason of the new; for the mutual accommodation of conflicting claims, possible or legitimate within a common framework of moral standards, amounts to surrender when the moral standards themselves are the stake of the conflict. Thus the stage is set for a contest among nations whose stakes are the ability to impose upon the other contestants a new universal political and moral system re-created in the image of the victorious nation's political and moral convictions.