+Q10fanatic Posted June 9, 2020 Report Share Posted June 9, 2020 43 minutes ago, Oltux72 said: He hadn't surrendered, still a combatant, even if a failure as a fighter, too If we're arguing combatant vs non-combatant, I'd argue holding a (basically) refugee/hostage child and carrying the child to the rescue point is much closer to non-combatant. Also, there is nothing in the text suggesting that Moash cared about Elhokar being a combatant. Does anyone doubt that he would happily have stabbed Elhokar in his sleep? Is there anything in OB that suggests Moash is operating from any kind of moral code at all? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karger Posted June 9, 2020 Report Share Posted June 9, 2020 1 hour ago, Oltux72 said: He hadn't surrendered, still a combatant, even if a failure as a fighter, too. That is not good enough. From the Law of Armed conflict. Quote Following from the requirement of a definite military advantage, it is not lawful to launch an attack which only offers potential or indeterminate advantages. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frustration Posted June 9, 2020 Report Share Posted June 9, 2020 10 hours ago, trav said: its almost as if you know that there is in fact NO RIGHT of conquest. the conqueror did someone wrong at some point. you (YOURSELF AND NOONE ELSE) choose to be fine with this. for one reason or another. that does not make it fine/right though. it only means you perceive it that way. Not all conquerors are the awful people you portray them as wanting food or safety for their people, and being very friendly to those conquered all they wanted was a transfer of power. Individuals like Cyrus or Alexander the Great. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clockworkspider Posted June 10, 2020 Report Share Posted June 10, 2020 11 hours ago, Frustration said: Not all conquerors are the awful people you portray them as wanting food or safety for their people, and being very friendly to those conquered all they wanted was a transfer of power. Individuals like Cyrus or Alexander the Great. It still comes down to "I want your stuff, and I'll take it by force." When an individual does that, we call it "armed robbery", and we consider it a crime. Yet somehow it's just fine when we do it on the scale of entire nations? With the associated increase in suffering? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.