N. and S. Korea firing artillery at each other

[Commissar]

@GIGObuster

You are just missing the point, all that was to show that indeed it was a lie of yours to say that you approached this with open eyes and no biases.

Just complaining about the first link does not help your sorry position.

One proven lie is not enough? Is this a Western thing? How many FinnAgain links do I need to demolish before you realize that your moronic little friend is attempting to bullshit his way out of a losing argument?

[GIGObuster]

@Commissar

One proven lie is not enough? Is this a Western thing? How many FinnAgain links do I need to demolish before you realize that your moronic little friend is attempting to bullshit his way out of a losing argument?

Once again: you claimed that you approached this with with open eyes and no bias.

Sorry to say but even your name and past posting history shows that this was not only a lie but a stupid one to boot.

[FinnAgain]

@GIGObuster

You are just missing the point, all that was to show that indeed it was a lie of yours to say that you approached this with open eyes and no biases.

Just complaining about the first link does not help your sorry position.

His main tools are dishonesty, militant ignorance and attempted misdirection. Focusing on only the first link his his way of going for a trifecta. He is, of course, lying about me being wrong on the contents of that link.

@Commissar

For instance, let’s start at the beginning and analyze your first link. You claim, erroneously, that it represents a statement on my part that the North Korean account is, indeed correct.

[

We do not have that here. What we have is two non-nuclear nations, technically still at war decades after most hostilities ended, and a tense border dividing the two. These are two nations sitting on a powder-keg; clearly, the best thing for both to do is to tread lightly and avoid antagonizing each other. Instead, the South decides it would be a splendid idea to lob artillery shells over the border and into the general vicinity of Northern targets. If that’s not actionable provocation, I’m not sure what is.

](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13182422&postcount=148)

Naturally he’s lying about all the other links I provided, too.
Speaking of how he’s now reduced to lying with pretty much every single argument he makes:

@Commissar

You ever so conveniently fail to mention the fact that you had previously stipulated that the North Korean account was in keeping with your understanding of the situation.

I never said any such thing which is why Commissar made it up and didn’t cite it, and in fact can not cite it. It’s hard to cite someone saying something that you made up.

@Commissar

Posts number 411 and 419, among many, many others.

Commissar has not linked to the posts because he’s lying. The questions I repeated, that Commissar is lying and claiming that he ever answered were:

[

Just to remind you as I’m sure the lack of cites is just a coincidence:

-Found that cite yet to prove your claim that under international law or custom, NK’s military response was “justified” or “appropriate”, seeing as how that was your claim and you’ve never provided any proof for it?

-Found that cite yet to prove that North Korea routinely (or ever) refers to territories that are claimed by SK as “disputed” rather than simply North Korea’s territory?

-Found that cite yet to prove that I have made assertions, that I did not then cite, about any of the things you’ve invented and claimed I’ve said?

](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13219470&postcount=460)

Did he address the second and third questions in post 411? No. Did he answer the first of those three questions in post 411?Nope In point of fact he refused to answer the first question and lied in order to create a strawman which he then demanded I defend.
Well, surely he’s not also lying aboutpost 419?. Oh, again he refused to answer the question and again lied and demanded that I provide proof for a strawman he’d created.
In fact, what he did is his general trolling-pattern. He advanced the claim that NK’s actions were “justified” and “appropriate”, and then when challenged to back up his claim with a cite of international law or international customary law, lied and made up strawmen, moaned like a bitch about how people wouldn’t provide proof of their assertions… and never provided proof of his assertion.

@Commissar

your moronic attempt to pass a non-binding manual off as international law .

Again, notice that he doesn’t actually link to any post. He doesn’t link anything, because again he’s lying. I pointed out that he had no support for his position, at all, and it had been almost a week since he’d advanced it and provided a clearly labeled hyperlink to the international customs of warfare at sea. Then he responded, naturally, by trying to change the subject, lying about how I was using the Sam Remo Manual, dishonestly cherrypicking the description of the SRM, claiming it was published by the Red Cross when it was not, and then claiming that Customary International Law had no legal applicability.
At which point I pointed out his utter idiocy and dishonesty.

Now he’s at it again, somehow ‘accidentally’ making the same errors again.
Or trolling.
(Gee, I wonder which is more likely?)

@Commissar

your expertise on the subject of international law.

And just because Commissar really is a syphilitic retard whose non-trolling time is spent fucking his mother, I’d like to point out:
[

Rome Statute? Treaty Law 101: treaties apply only to signatory states. North Korea never ratified the Rome Statute. What a silly mistake on your part, but I’ve no doubts you’ll blow it off, as usual.

](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13228615&postcount=525)
The applicability of the Rome Statute even to nations that do not sign is has already been cited by me in post nine of this thread.
But Commissar is the kind of deep, abiding, syphilis-ravaged stupid that he doesn’t even realize when he’s being stupid.

[Derleth]

@Commissar

Do you have a similar categorical refutation to the political ideology of authoritarianism?

Where is the Waffen-SS of yesteryear? Where is the Khmer Rouge? Is the Shining Path still a road to the future, or has it been sidetracked? Who, now, continues what was done to the Armenians in 1914? Is Finland ruled from Moscow or from Helsinki? Who is selling docile, beaten slaves in the markets of Memphis? Is Japan still raping Nanjing or Korea?

When I use the PRC as a counter-argument, they will, of course, argue that it does not represent true prosperity.

On the contrary: It does not represent true authoritarianism. Back in Mao’s day, back in the Cultural Revolution, do you think anyone in China other than the upper class would have been allowed the decadence of cell phones? The Internet? No, China has strayed from the path still trod by North Korea, and what has North Korea gained recently except a little more attention and, perhaps, some scraps from the table?

As a preemptive move, I offer the following two alternative capitalist authoritarian states as proof of my position: Saudi Arabia and Singapore.

Fairly interesting client states, dependent upon wealthier neighbors to buy their goods and sell them technology they can’t develop themselves. But, I ask you, when was the last time either of them staged a mass purge of their own citizens? How can a country claim to be authoritarian if it does not have camps full of walking corpses terrorized out of their own fundamental humanity? Cambodia, even little Cambodia, was a more successfully authoritarian state for the period the Khmer Rouge was in power. (For the record, that was all of four years.)

[Commissar]

And now, my friends, I will demonstrate that FinnAgain is a lying lowlife. In the interests of brevity and succinctness, I will make this as quick as possible. Let’s begin with one of his most recent statements:

@FinnAgain

Again, notice that he doesn’t actually link to any post. He doesn’t link anything, because again he’s lying. [URL=“http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13210444&postcount=371”] I pointed out that he had no support for his position, at all, and it had been almost a week since he’d advanced it and provided a clearly labeled hyperlink to the international customs of warfare at sea.

Please allow me to highlight the lie:

I pointed out that he had no support for his position, at all, and it had been almost a week since he’d advanced it and provided a clearly labeled hyperlink to the international customs of warfare at sea.

Hint: FinnAgain is lying his ass off at this point. But please don’t take my word for it; let us follow the link in his statement. Said link brings us to this:

Rather obviously the relevant international laws do not call for allowing wars of aggression (real aggression, not Orwellian “aggression”) , such as NK attempted to start based on their own claims (that you keep ignoring). Equally obvious is that the international customs of warfare at sea do not find splashes in the water to be a casus belli, either. Nor do they find NK’s murderous behavior as a valid method whereby one may prosecute a just war.

The link here leads us to the following site: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/560?OpenDocument

Notice anything? Kudos to those realized that FinnAgain’s argument has regressed to a non-binding, non-legal document presented by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law:

San Remo Manual

FinnAgain has lied. There are no two ways around this. He has attempted to invoke international law, and he has lied in his attempt to do so. He has cited to a document that has no legal significance. He could try to play this fact off as an honest mistake based on understandable ignorance, but does he do so? No. He attempts to pull the wool over your eyes by perpetuating the lie. For your own sake, please do not be fooled.

I do not expect you to agree with me, but at least I fight with honor and honesty. This is apparently too much to ask for from the likes of that lying little weasel, FinnAgain.

[FinnAgain]

That may be the most stunning display of retard-strength trolling that I’ve ever seen.
My “lie” is that I provided a “clearly labeled hyperlink to the international customs of warfare at sea?” To prove this “lie”… a quote is provided in which I provide a clearly labeled hyperlink to the international customs of warfare at sea. And one in which I clearly delineated between international law and international custom.
As for international customary law being “non-legal” and having “no legal significance”, that’s just Commissar’s characteristic stupidity and customary ignorance, and it’s already been debunked in links that he’s ignoring/distorting/lying about, yet again.

I honestly want to be able to feel bad for him. It must be hard for him, seduced by his mother and she didn’t even tell him that she was infected with syphilis… but good lord he’s so damned stupid and strident in his ignorance that it’s hard for me to muster any sympathy.

[Commissar]

@Derleth

Where is the Waffen-SS of yesteryear?

In the dustbin of history, where it was single-handedly relegated by the glorious might of the Red Army.

Where is the Khmer Rouge?

Dead and gone. The enemies of the people deserve no less.

Is the Shining Path still a road to the future, or has it been sidetracked?

See above.

Who, now, continues what was done to the Armenians in 1914?

You tell me. Given that my particular political philosophy did not emerge until 1917, I make no judgment calls relating to the year 1914.

Is Finland ruled from Moscow or from Helsinki?

It ought to be Moskva, but it currently is not.

Who is selling docile, beaten slaves in the markets of Memphis?

I would argue that the white Imperial racists are perpetuating the legacy of the both the Southern slave masters and their KKK successors, but I don’t wish to undermine your melodramatic diatribe. Do go on.

Is Japan still raping Nanjing or Korea?

Yes.

On the contrary: It does not represent true authoritarianism. Back in Mao’s day, back in the Cultural Revolution, do you think anyone in China other than the upper class would have been allowed the decadence of cell phones?

If it were available? Yes.

The Internet?

Ditto.

No, China has strayed from the path still trod by North Korea, and what has North Korea gained recently except a little more attention and, perhaps, some scraps from the table?

The last time I checked, my “Guidebook to Socialism” did not state that the North Korean take on Marxism-Leninism is actually the correct one. :rolleyes:

Fairly interesting client states, dependent upon wealthier neighbors to buy their goods and sell them technology they can’t develop themselves.

So true. I am glad that capitalist nations are immune to such dependence. Never in a million years can we imagine an American Empire whose very survival depends on either cheap Chinese goods or the generous Chinese buy-out of its astronomical debt. Heaven forbid. :rolleyes:

But, I ask you, when was the last time either of them staged a mass purge of their own citizens?

Now that you ask, I suppose that the glorious PRC has been doing quite well without “purges” for quite a while.

How can a country claim to be authoritarian if it does not have camps full of walking corpses terrorized out of their own fundamental humanity?

Two points. One, authoritarianism does not require willy-nilly imprisonment. Two, I think that this is neither the time nor the place to debate Guantanamo Bay.

Cambodia, even little Cambodia, was a more successfully authoritarian state for the period the Khmer Rouge was in power. (For the record, that was all of four years.)

How, exactly, do you define “authoritarian?”

[FinnAgain]

Ah well, while PALATR is fun and never really gets old, especially with such an absurd retard as our commie buddy, I will fight some ignorance in case people reading along aren’t aware of what customary international law is.

[

Treaty law and customary law are the main sources of international law. In the area of international humanitarian law, treaty law is well developed but its application is limited to States that have ratified the treaties in question, and to armed opposition groups within those States. Customary international humanitarian law, on the other hand, is binding on all States but its content is less clear because it is not written down as such. Customary international law is created by widespread, representative and uniform practice among States. Its rules, as a result, can only be determined on the basis of extensive research into that practice.

](http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/customary-law-30-international-conference-121007.htm)

(Readers will note that the Sam Remo Manual is the result of extensive research into the international customs of warfare at sea)

[

Article 38

1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:

   a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;

   b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;

   c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;

   d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.

](http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0#CHAPTER_II)

[

According to Article 38 of the International Court of Justice Statute, customary international law and general principles of law are two sources of international law. These are also the two most difficult sources to research because they are documented in such a wide variety of sources.

Article 38 also mentions judicial decisions and the teachings of publicists as “subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.” These are not authorities, rather they are authoritative evidence of the state of international law.
[…]
What is customary international law?

"It consists of rules of law derived from the consistent conduct of States acting out of the belief that the law required them to act that way." (Rosenne, Practice and Methods of International Law, p. 55)

The elements of customary international law include:

1. Widespread repetition by States of similar international acts over time (State practice).
2. Acts must occur out of sense of obligation (opinio juris). 
3. Acts must be taken by a significant number of States and not be rejected by a significant number of States. 

"Customary international law develops from the practice of States. To international lawyers, �the practice of states' means official governmental conduct reflected in a variety of acts, including official statements at international conferences and in diplomatic exchanges, formal instructions to diplomatic agents, national court decisions, legislative measures or other actions taken by governments to deal with matters of international concern." (Public International Law in a Nutshell, pp. 22-23).

A peremptory norm (also called “jus cogens”) is an international law rule or principle which is accepted and considered binding by the international community. Generally, these norms include prohibitions on use of force, crimes against humanity, war crimes, piracy, genocide, and slavery.

](http://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/classes/iflr/customary.html)

[

In 1950, the International Law Commission listed as evidence of customary international law: treaties, decisions of national courts and international tribunals, national legislation, diplomatic correspondence, opinions of national legal advisors, and the practice of international organizations (“Report of the International Law Commission to the General Assembly (Part II): Ways and Means of Making the Evidence of Customary International Law More Readily Available,” [1950] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 367, ILC Doc. A/1316).

](International Legal Research)

[

What is Customary International Law?

“Customary international law results from a general and consistent practice of states followed by them from a sense of legal obligation.”[1]

This definition was published in §102 (2) of the Restatement of the Law, Third, Foreign Relations Law of the United States, published by the American Law Institute in 1987. The Restatement’s reporters’ notes for this section state that “No definition of customary law has received universal agreement, but the essence of Subsection (2) has wide acceptance” and goes on to explain various difficulties in defining custom."[2]

When is state practice considered to be customary international law? The Restatement calls for two-pronged approach to determining custom requiring both a general and consistent practice and a sense of legal obligation (opinion juris sive necessitates). J.L. Brierly describes it as follows: “Custom in its legal sense means something more than mere habit or usage; it is a usage felt by those who follow it to be an obligatory one. There must be present a feeling that, if the usage is departed from, some form of sanction probably, or at any rate ought to, fall on the transgressor.”[3] Obviously, terms such as “a feeling that”, “will probably” and “ought” are difficult to prove. As Mark Janis puts it in his book, An Introduction to International Law, “The determination of customary international law is more an art than a scientific method.”[4] This is a complex and fascinating area of law that is addressed by the many excellent books and articles on customary international law.
[…]
Custom as a Source of Law

Customary law is listed as a source of international law in the Restatement in §102(1)(a), along with international agreements and general principles:

§ 102 Sources of International Law
(1) A rule of international law is one that has been accepted as such by the international community of states

(a) in the form of customary law;
(b) by international agreement; or
(c) by derivation from general principles common to the major legal systems of the world.[5]

The Restatement’s description of the sources of international law is derived in part from the Statute of the International Court of Justice[6], described in the Restatement as an “authoritative statement of the ‘sources’ of international law.”[7] Article 38 of the Statute describes what the court should consider in making decisions in accordance with international law:
[…]
Evidence of Customary International Law

The Restatement describes the evidence of international law in §103. Of particular interest to the researcher of custom is §103(2)(d) which describes the evidence of pronouncements of states:

§ 103 Evidence of International Law
(1) Whether a rule has become international law is determined by evidence appropriate to the particular source from which that rule is alleged to derive (§ 102).
(2) In determining whether a rule has become international law, substantial weight is accorded to

(a) judgments and opinions of international judicial and arbitral tribunals;
(b) judgments and opinions of national judicial tribunals;
(c) the writings of scholars;
(d) pronouncements by states that undertake to state a rule of international law, when such pronouncements are not seriously challenged by other states.[10]

The Restatement comments state “Thus, for customary law the “best evidence” is the proof of state practice, ordinarily by reference to official documents and other indications of governmental action.”[11] In Principles of Public International Law, Ian Brownlie lists the following sources as evidence of custom: “The material sources of custom are very numerous and include the following: diplomatic correspondence, policy statements, press releases, the opinions of official legal advisers, official manuals on legal questions, e.g. manuals of military law, executive decisions and practices, orders to naval forces etc., comments by governments on drafts produced by the International Law Commission, state legislation, international and national judicial decisions, recitals in treaties and other international instruments, a pattern of treaties in the same form, the practice of international organs, and resolutions relating to legal questions in the United Nations General Assembly.”

](Researching Customary International Law, State Practice and the Pronouncements of States regarding International Law - GlobaLex)

[Monty]

I’m probably going to regret asking this, but here goes anyway. How, exactly, is Japan raping Korea?

[FinnAgain]

Must… not… link… picture… of… tentacles…

[Commissar]

@FinnAgain

A(Readers will note that the Sam Remo Manual is the result of extensive research into the international customs of warfare at sea)

Actually, readers will realize that FinnAgain is trying to mislead them. It hardly matters how much “research” has gone into the manual. I refer you to the following page:

http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jmst.htm

I draw your attention to the following:

" The Manual is not a binding document. In view of the extent of uncertainty in the law, the experts decided that it was premature to embark on diplomatic negotiations to draft a treaty on the subject."

In other words, FinnAgain is a lying piece of shit. This manual has absolutely no relationship to international law.

[Commissar]

Also, I advance the argument that we Soviets win on the strength of the following song alone:

- YouTube

I have never heard the human soul (if we assume that it exists) actually speak beforehand. This is awesome.

[FinnAgain]

Poor troll, using the same patterns of dishonesty that have been pointed out and re-cited in this thread.

[

@FinnAgain

@Commissar

linking to a 3rd party document on the assumption that it represents a binding treaty.

Obviously you’ve just made that up and used that strawman because your argument is incapable of dealing with the facts, namely that I never said it was a binding treaty but provided the Sam Remo manual as the guideline for international customs of warfare at sea. Also known as “customary law”.

The hint, one would think, would be that the hyperlink I provided was “the international customs of warfare at sea”. I can understand that you would prefer to claim that I stated, anywhere, that international customs were identical with binding laws, or binding treaties (which by the way are quite different from laws). Luckily enough, I did not. In point of fact I also clearly delineated between international laws and international customs. One might wonder how you made such a mistake.

@Commissar

The San Remo Manual is a proposed set of guidelines published by the Red Cross

Wrong, it was published by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law.
Also wrong, it was not a proposed set of guidelines but a manual on the current state of international customary law.

And you have had to deliberately ignore the contents of the link that you just provided in order to make your claim about binding documents. In fact, if you had provided the quote in context (which you just-so-happened to snip, surely not to deliberately cherry pick), readers would have noted that it actually says. Everything in italics is the stuff that you just-so-happened to snip.

The Manual is not a binding document. In view of the extent of uncertainty in the law, the experts decided that it was premature to embark on diplomatic negotiations to draft a treaty on the subject. The work therefore concentrated on finding areas of agreement as to the present content of customary law, which were far more numerous than initially appeared possible. As a second step the experts discussed controversial issues with a view to reaching an agreed compromise on innovative proposals by way of progressive development. However, although the Manual was to contain provisions of this latter type, most of them were always meant to be an expression of what the participants believed to be present law. Thus in many respects the San Remo Manual was intentionally designed to be a modern equivalent of the Oxford Manual of 1913. The experts believed that the drafting of such a document would help clarify the law, thus removing the impression that there was such a degree of disagreement as to render its uniform development in customary law or eventual codification impossible

@Commissar

it has about as much international legal weight as any of my statements would: zero.

It’s interesting that you are both admitting that your views have zero relationship with legality (correct) and claiming that international customary law has no legal weight (incorrect). You are, simply, showcasing your ignorance on the subject.

](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13211263&postcount=373)
Anyways, Commissar, were you angry when you found out that your mother had given you syphilis, or was your mind already so far gone at that point that you just kinda shit your pants angrily (ya know, like how you “debate”)?

[Derleth]

Commissar, authoritarianism requires a government in a position of unquestionable authority using that power to make life hell for people, most often its own citizens first and foremost. This dates back to substantially before 1917. It dates back to substantially before the dawn of recorded history. Your Pink Heroes’ Ivan-Come-Lately shenanigans have to be examined in the context of the Russian Empire, the various Chinese Dynasties, the Belgian Congo, Spanish rule in the West Indies, and the many and varied slave-holding empires dating far back into antiquity.

What do we learn? Well, 1917-1991 is pretty damn pitiful. Also, Stalin was a pathetic figure hounded by the ghosts in his head. Finally, we learn that the only way forwards for China was to adopt the strategies of the successful democratic nations and allow its citizens an amount of personal liberty so extreme they can even visit websites of questionable political character without ending up in Reeducation Through Labor Camps. (Also: ‘One Country, Two Systems’? In Mao’s day, it would have been ‘One Country, Two Mass Graves’!)

[Marley23]

@Commissar

Also, I advance the argument that we Soviets win

Again: when did your family leave Belarus, and how old were you? I’m accustomed to hearing from Communists, but most of the ones I know strenuously disavow the Soviet Union owing to the mass murders and starvations and other titanic failures.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Commissar

Also, I advance the argument that we Soviets win on the strength of the following song alone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jywy91Td-hg

I have never heard the human soul (if we assume that it exists) actually speak beforehand. This is awesome.

Care to give us a translation, generously assuming you actually understand the language and not just a lying troll who picked a mournful-sounding song at random?

[Marley23]

I’m having trouble taking Commissar at face value, but he’s an interesting thought experiment. Did anyone else in this thread ever read Superman: Red Son? I’m thinking Commissar is an alternate universe version of Qin Shi Huangdi who was raised in the USSR instead of the US.

[Capitaine_Zombie]

@Monty

I’m probably going to regret asking this, but here goes anyway. How, exactly, is Japan raping Korea?

Missionary, mostly.

[E-Sabbath]

@Marley23

I’m having trouble taking Commissar at face value, but he’s an interesting thought experiment. Did anyone else in this thread ever read Superman: Red Son? I’m thinking Commissar is an alternate universe version of Qin Shi Huangdi who was raised in the USSR instead of the US.

Not only have I read it, I have a fuzzy-hatted Batman action figure.

[Morgenstern]

Commissar, is this North Korea’s equivalent of the Berlin wall?

Since the mid 1990s, when famine and a mass exodus jeopardized Kim Jong-il’s control over the country, the regime has viewed its border with China as a second battlefront, stationing 300,000 soldiers there.
from.

What Really Scares Kim Jong-il

Nevermind, I think I found the answer.

• …but at the Chinese border there is the sound of gunfire every day. Defectors are being shot,…*

I guess searching for food is a capital crime there.