Reddit reviews The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War
We found 2 Reddit comments about The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
>50 good boy points to /sg/. Don't spend it all on tendies at once, kiddo (be flattered, that's fam).
Well color me tickled, never thought I'd run into a fellow r/tendies poster on a board devoted to SCW discussion . . . err I mean fuck your normie nuggie R2REEEEEE doctrine!
>The "REEE get off my sub" stuff in my earlier reply probably wasn't helpful. I'm annoyed by the GanjaGremlins and elboydos who have become so common and voluble on this sub, just like I'd be annoyed if a bunch of "Bush did nothing wrong" neocon circlejerkers showed up. Hopefully you aren't in that category.
I'm definitely not in that category dude, I'm a regime supporter and I hope Assad wins this war but I'm not blind to what the regime has done in terms of atrocities, I just think they're the lesser of the evils we've been presented so far. And I agree with most of what you said about limited cross border incursions to attack IS in Syria, that does have some support in customary state practice lately. I'm 100% positive that occupying land in this context is still illegal given traditional customary IL forbidding such forms of intervention in the civil wars of other nations.
I'd love to dork out on history and law with you further but I'm currently in the middle of exams and our response chain is growing to novella sized lengths. Anyway if you want to know the sources for my arguments the 2009 EU fact finding mission on Georgia is a good place to start (second report) where it used customary IL to show the illegality of the Russian intervention on behalf of South Ossetia and another source is this Bible of international humanitarian law:
https://www.amazon.com/Law-Armed-Conflict-International-Humanitarian/dp/0521870887
Definitely worth checking out if you're into learning about IHL jus ad bellum and jus in bello, because a lot of what we are discussing as you said is not formally settled law. This book does an excellent job of showing the current state of the law on the issues we're discussing, I wrote my law journal paper on the Russian intervention in the SCW last year and cited this book more than any on these issues.
I knew you'd be back!
"I'm not persuaded" versus "If we're being technical, it may be more accurate..." Which is more of a feeling again?
Even if you had "every dictionary ever created" on your desk, and consulted them all, it would not outweigh the contents of book I linked, which I have on my desk (along with this one). So, no, yours was sillier.
Ok, your turn to spout some more nonsense in-between quotes from earlier in the conversation. Careful to avoid the substance of the actual dispute at hand though.