re: #71 Aunty Entity Dragon

The counter argument is that the other side already threw out the rulebook (and they arguably did).

The laws of land warfare generally existed to promote enlightened self interest: You don’t want your people civilians and prisoners being abused, so you agree not to do the same to the other side.

When you have a combatant that is ideologically opposed to any sort of accomodation to the usual norms of armed conduct, you really do run into a problem, and in my view the folks in the Hague et al have not rwlaly thought this out. What to do when you are faced with an enemy that buthers every peron they take prisoner? Can you really blame a uniformed force if they refuse to take prisoners in return…knowing that they would not be given the same accord? How can you expect soldiers to give quarter after seeing their own comrades burned alive or beheaded on video the week before?

There is ample precedent in American history, particularly in the southern campaign of the Revolution when Americans started butchering British soldiers who tryed to surrender after Bitish dragoon officer Bannistre Tarleton had executed American risoners previously (and made sure we knew about it.)

In my view, some degree of reciprocity becomes inevitable and would have to be overlooked.

Um, really? They’re complete monsters and that makes it okay for us to be monsters.

The problem is that even if you win, you lose. You’ve become the thing you hate and when the war is over there’s no guarantee that the restraints you voluntarily gave up will return.

We’re supposed to be better than that. Nobody said being good was easy.