Death to all collaborators?

[bhsup]

Perhaps it would have been better if the thread had been titled "Death to all traitors."

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Pasi, you have got to admit there is grey area here. Since you included 'all' in your question, I can see why many would hesitate to vote yes. I'm thinking I have been too hasty with my vote.

If I feed hungry soldiers who are passing through my land, I am aiding the enemy. Simply because I regarded them as hungry human beings.

I am not forced in any way, I am by our definition a collaborator. Do I deserve to be shot for aiding the enemy?

Yes, you are forced, because to refuse them would risk imprisonment, torture, or death. If two german soldiers walked up to a French cafe owner in 1942 and suggested that it would be a good idea for him to give them some complimentary coffee or food, and he does so, he is hardly a collaborator.

 

[Sidhe]

Doesn't "treasonous" imply voluntarily?

Honest question, no luring, just working out a pickle.
edit: Using this definition: to cooperate treasonably, as with an enemy occupation force in one's country

From a dictionary. So sue me

So treason cannot be committed under duress, so if I killed Winston Churchill, because someone was holding my family to ransom, I would not be guilty of treason.

It's irrelevant anyway, I don't even care about this point as it has nothing to do with the case, the original question is devoid of context that it is not even worth much time answering. It needs rephrasing, and justifying butchery in the name of self righteousness is laughable frankly.

Perhaps it would have been better if the thread had been titled "Death to all traitors."

Precisely Pasi reminds me of the German officers who said we were just following orders, what were their crimes? I don't know and I don't care it doesn't matter, shoot them all and let God sort them out.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Fine, so we estabilished that the 0.00001% of the collaborators, under Pasi's brand new definition of the term, deserve to die.

Great, informative and completely useless in the real world.

God, is there anyway that at any point you could be something other than combative or stubborn? It seems not. Actually we've established that 100% of collaborators under my definition of the term, which is the definition everyone should use, deserve to die.

Seriously? Take a few pills. You'd be happier.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yes, you are forced, because to refuse them would risk imprisonment, torture, or death. If two german soldiers walked up to a French cafe owner in 1942 and suggested that it would be a good idea for him to give them some complimentary coffee or food, and he does so, he is hardly a collaborator.

I'm not forced. They're marching through my land, with no intention of stopping or harassing me. They look terrible and hungry. I approach them to offer them food. I voluntarily give them food because I feel sorry for them.

That's the setting. Do I deserve to be shot?

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

So treason cannot be committed under duress, so if I killed Winston Churchill, because someone was holding my family to ransom, I would not be guilty of treason.

It's irrelevant anyway, I don't even care about this point as it has nothing to do with the case, the original question is devoid of context that it is not even worth much time answering. It needs rephrasing, and justifying butchery in the name of self righteousness is laughable frankly.

Then why are you here? If you feel that way, to post in this thread basically constitutes spamming and trolling.

Precisely Pasi reminds me of the German officers who said we were just following orders, what were their crimes? I don't know and I don't care it doesn't matter, shoot them all and let God sort them out.

Do what the Soviets did. Execute every Nazi official from mayor level up. In a total war, this is appropriate.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

If we know she is, she gets a bullet to the brain.

How will we know?

If it's just an accusation, well we still have to hold her anyways because she now has knowledge of me and our MO. I'm sure we'd figure out something, and probably sooner rather than later release her back to wherever it is she came from, with strict instructions to tell no one of what she saw.

Well, Pasi, sorry, but that makes no sense. Heres a tip for your resistance movement: when someone is accused of being a high level collaborator, before dragging them to your hide out, begin an investigation, gather evidence. Trials in absentia can be lawful if handled correctly.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I'm not forced. They're marching through my land, with no intention of stopping or harassing me. They look terrible and hungry. I approach them to offer them food. I voluntarily give them food because I feel sorry for them.

That's the setting. Do I deserve to be shot?

No, you are forced. If you refuse, you could be shot or imprisoned, while the troops in question take turns with your daughters in a bedroom. Maybe they don't intend to do that, but it's fully within their powers and you have no way of knowing that they don't.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Well, Pasi, sorry, but that makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Why do you think US airmen that were rescued by resistance members after being shot down over hostile terrain weren't allowed back into the air? Because the possessed knowledge of the resistance. Thus, we'd have to hold the woman in question for a little while and tell her to tell no one of what she saw while we were holding her.

The rest of your post is irrelevant.

 

[Sidhe]

Then why are you here? If you feel that way, to post in this thread basically constitutes spamming and trolling.

Because your talking horrendous amounts of moral garbage, that are offensive to right thinking people everywhere. The OP can rephrase at some point,in the meantime you however seem to think that slaughter is the preserve of the self righteous. What a load of horse apples, frankly.

Hail Hitler!

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Because your talking horrendous amounts of moral garbage, that are offense to right thinking people everywhere. The OP can rephrase at some point,in the meantime you however seem to think that slaughter is the preserve of the self righteous. What a load of horse apples, frankly.

Hail Hitler!

Like I said, trolling. Also flaming.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

It makes perfect sense. Why do you think US airmen that were rescued by resistance members after being shot down over hostile terrain weren't allowed back into the air? Because the possessed knowledge of the resistance. Thus, we'd have to hold the woman in question for a little while and tell her to tell no one of what she saw while we were holding her.

Is English your first language? I clearly stated that you shouldnt kidnap suspected people and take them to the Resistance.

The rest of your post is irrelevant.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No, you are forced. If you refuse

If I refuse to voluntarily give them food.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Is English your first language? I clearly stated that you shouldnt kidnap suspected people and take them to the Resistance.

No, you said "your hideout." Who said anything about hideout? Who said where we'd hold this woman? Obviously we would not take her to our Super Skull Island of Doom Headquarters, and we wouldn't just send someone out to her house, but there's probably a happy medium in there somewhere.

 

[Sidhe]

Like I said, trolling. Also flaming.

Oh great counter argument, you know your in the wrong Pasi, no organisation has ever carried itself with such ruthless brutality since Stalin or the Nazis or Ide Amen or Pol Pot, your rhetoric is the talk of evil men. But rather than try and justify your strawman, and it is, you throw out accusations of flaming and trolling? I tell you what you justify mindless slaughter and I'll stop comparing your rhetoric to that of the Nazis.

You should report me, but you know you can't because I'm labelling your moral ideas as nazism not you as a Nazi, stop trying to be a rule judge and back up your arguments? Or don't and just toss false accusations around. I'm listening?

An apposite affirmation of Godwyn's law I think.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

If I refuse to voluntarily give them food.

You don't voluntarily give them food. If you do, well you shouldn't be shot, but punished somehow. If it's after the war, maybe we can just garnish your wages for the rest of your life, that would be appropriate. If it's still the war and we find out about it, we can still go to your farmhouse and arrange some kind of a resistance tax.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Oh great counter argument, you know your in the wrong Pasi, no organisation has ever carried itself with such ruthless brutality since Stalin or the Nazis, your rhetoric is the talk of evil men. But rather than try and justify your strawman, and it is, you throw out accusations of flaming and trolling? I tell you what you justify mindless slaughter and I'll stop comparing your rhetoric to that of the Nazis.

You should report me, but you know you can't because I'm labelling your moral ideas as nazism not you as a Nazi, stop trying to be a rule judge and back up your arguments? Or don't and just toss false accusations around. I'm listening?

An aposite affirmation of Godwyns law I think.

Let me know when you're done trolling.

 

[Winner]

God, is there anyway that at any point you could be something other than combative or stubborn? It seems not. Actually we've established that 100% of collaborators under my definition of the term, which is the definition everyone should use, deserve to die.
Seriously? Take a few pills. You'd be happier.

You are telling this to me?

That's the funniest thing I heard in a month.

The point many people here are trying to make is, that your definition is flawed, because it either disqualifies most of the collaborators, or makes all people collaborators.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

No, you said "your hideout." Who said anything about hideout? Who said where we'd hold this woman? Obviously we would not take her to our Super Skull Island of Doom Headquarters, and we wouldn't just send someone out to her house, but there's probably a happy medium in there somewhere.

A happy medium...Hmmm...I got it! How about a trial?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You don't voluntarily give them food. If you do, well you shouldn't be shot, but punished somehow. If it's after the war, maybe we can just garnish your wages for the rest of your life, that would be appropriate. If it's still the war and we find out about it, we can still go to your farmhouse and arrange some kind of a resistance tax.

Serves me right for feeling sorry for, and feeding a hungry human. Sorry, but it's not all that clear-cut to me.

I should have voted "no" because of the inclusion of "all" in the title.