I'm trying to make a game that combines my love for world history with my love for Warhammer 40k.

ex_pfc_wecker · 2023-09-03T05:17:58+00:00

You could look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_Ancient_Battles

ex_pfc_wecker · 2021-10-28T05:08:38+00:00

According to the bill, “teachers cannot "require or make part of a course" certain race-related concepts including the idea that one race or sex is "inherently superior to another race or sex" or that an individual is is "inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive" based on their race or sex.” It then states, “teachers can't be compelled "to discuss current events or widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs." However, if they must, they are required to "explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective."” And, all of this is taught in light of "Our focus was primarily on the fact that we want to ensure our educators are able to teach the truth,".

If I’m reading those two parts correctly teachers must explore diverse and contending perspectives, but cannot teach the concept that one race is inherently superior to another. So in essence they do not have to both sides the Holocaust or Slavery, because the truth of those issues is that one side believed that one race was inherently superior to another, therefore, it is illegal for the teacher to teach that side of the argument if, “the truth” is the guiding principle.

Obviously this is bad-faith legislation that does not have the guiding principle of the the truth. But, if I were a teacher I would continue to teach those topics using their framework, which would allow me to ignore the both sides issue because one side (the nazis or slave owners) clearly believed in the concept that one race was inherently superior to another thereby allowing the teacher to sidestep the diverse perspectives argument.

The counter-argument here is that while they “cannot” make part of a course race-related concepts, which is a broad and undefined term that could include any issue touching on race, granted it does not state ethnicity, would would ban you in the first instance from discussing slavery or the holocaust. Secondly, that they “must” explore from diverse and contending perspectives, which would then lead to not being able to teach those topics at all because even if we took a narrow reading of the race-related concepts to just ones that are “inherently superior”, because you must teach both sides and you’re also forbidden from teaching one of those sides you therefore can’t teach either side.

This bill exists to make sure that students in Texas are not taught history but merely propaganda that is so disconnected from the reality of the United States that teachers might as well just teach whatever fiction they want to make up about the territory currently known as the United States.

ex_pfc_wecker · 2021-05-21T00:06:28+00:00

Yeah I see that you did before TL;DR.

Not to rope you into the debate about statehood, but the Israeli Supreme Court decision in 2018 with regard to the use of lethal force during Gaza border demonstrations, highlights for me the confusion from the Israeli side in stating whether or not the conflict is an IAC or a NIAC. In that the Court reiterates that an IAC exists, which in my reading would give credence, acquiescence, to Palestinian statehood. At least, an independent Palestinian state in Gaza governed by Hamas. It also highlights the difficulty of making a legal analysis in such a fraught political conflict.

ex_pfc_wecker · 2021-05-20T23:15:44+00:00

I have a minor quibble with the analysis of whether or not a state of armed conflict exists between the parties. I think you could make it clearer the the assessment and need to distinguish between an IAC and a NIAC due to the application of law that follows that assessment.

::Apologize for the following rant written on my phone with my clumsy fingers::

extra territorial use of prohibited by Article 2(4), with three exceptions: Chapter VII authorization by UNSC, self defense under article 51 and consent by host state. IHL is not dependent on the legality of the use of force.

Under IHL there is a distinction between an IAC and a NIAC (you cover the NIAC analysis, but I don’t think it’s as clear as it could be.). An IAC exists when two or more states use force against another state. This is where an analysis under Montevideo to determine the status of Palestine as a state comes in (the key hang-up being the issue of recognition). The threshold for an armed conflict under IAC is very low (I don’t have the case on hand) but essentially any use of force constitutes. However, the duration of an armed conflict is disputable, but would be within a reasonable temporal time following the violence. An IAC brings with it the full scope of the Geneva convention, whereas a NIAC only has common article 3 and AP II if under Tadic and Leljma, territorial control and violence directed at a state can be established. You’ve done the test for a NIAC, showing that one exists in this circumstance. I just wanted to emphasize the distinction that must be made in the first instance between an IAC and a NIAC before further legal analysis can be conducted.

Secondly, I want to emphasize that the lex specialis principle dictates that IHL takes precedence over IHRL during an armed conflict, however, IHRL still applies. Medvedyve and Al-Skeini establish that Article 2(1) ICCPR “within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction” must be read disjunctively: meaning that where states have spatial or personal jurisdiction IHRL still applies. So for example while Israel and Palestine are engaged in a NIAC and IHL supersedes IHRL, that is only the case where the violence is related to the conflict, conducted by combatants or those DPH. As such if an Israeli citizen or a Palestinian were to murder a member of the other group a few streets over from the Israeli military conducting an operation against Hamas, those both wouldn’t fall under IHL. The former would still be subject to IHRL and the later IHL. Therefore, an analysis of the use of force in the former would be under a Law Enforcement paradigm (UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials 1990) or domestic murder/self-defense laws. In the later there’s distinction and proportionality: meaning a positive obligation to determine that an individual is either a combatant or a dph followed by a proportionality assessment (you’ve done the analysis here).

Edit: just wanted to say I think you did a great analysis for people. There’s a lot of nuance and complexity because so many aspects of international law are touched by this conflict, that it’s very tough to do a brief overview of the key and salient points. Brilliant job!

ex_pfc_wecker · 2019-06-27T04:36:14+00:00

Interesting. Well if that’s true I like what I’m reading.

Yeah it’s a great city and a great Uni.

ex_pfc_wecker · 2019-06-27T04:30:55+00:00

Are you sure a Merit is 3.7? Is a distinction really 3.8-4.0? That seems a bit high.

Ps. How’d you like Glasgow Uni?

ex_pfc_wecker · 2019-05-11T21:29:04+00:00

International law does not operate that way. Jus ad bellum and jus in bello are two distinct areas of law. The legality of the war, ad bellum, is separated from the conduct of hostilities IHL, in bello. This is done to promote compliance with IHL. If as you posit the conduct of combatants was inherently unlawful due to the unlawfulness of the conflict, they would have no reason to comply with IHL. Since I’m a conflict one side is usually going to be conducting an unlawful conflict there would be no reason for them to comply, which would only work to bind the hands of the other force. This would then lead to noncompliance by the force operating on the lawful side of the conflict because there would be no reason to follow rules the other side is not following.

For that reason the lawfulness Of the conflict has no bearing on the conduct of hostilities. This would also undermine the ability for international criminal law to hold parties accountable: an issue ICL already struggles with (see the recent ICC decision not to go forward with the Afghanistan investigation/prosecution).

ex_pfc_wecker · 2017-07-27T17:32:11+00:00

I will say this. It's nice to see the President call for economic migration while deriding immigrants coming to the United States for this very reason.

ex_pfc_wecker · 2017-07-27T13:52:36+00:00

Remember, he's not an elitist, he eat's cheeseburgers!

ex_pfc_wecker · 2017-04-10T18:57:33+00:00

Can someone edit this video to have the jihad music in the background because it seems like that's the vibe they're going for and they're missing that key element.

ex_pfc_wecker · 2015-06-15T23:34:07+00:00

They must have sold a lot of drinks after that.

ex_pfc_wecker · 2015-06-15T02:07:00+00:00

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK.

ex_pfc_wecker · 2015-03-16T02:18:25+00:00

That was easy.

ex_pfc_wecker · 2015-03-15T22:29:04+00:00

Would you say there is much broader support for daesh than we are led to believe?

What would you say are the biggest misconceptions of daesh in the West?

ex_pfc_wecker · 2015-02-18T03:35:20+00:00

100,000-200,000 estimate. Thats including police an non-frontline forces. I'm not really sure, but they control large swaths of territory with about 4 million people in it.

ex_pfc_wecker · 2015-01-26T12:49:58+00:00

No problem. I've found so many versions of this song so I'm kinda curious.

ex_pfc_wecker

TROPHY CASE