Do you support the death penalty?

[Deity]

Yes. Under normal circumstances, premeditated murder is a pretty fair reason for the death penalty.

What is a "normal" circumstance for murder?

[Luís Henrique]

Huh, necessary evil. What kind of people would you be executing? Anyone deemed counterrevolutionary, a purge?

With no trial:

Soldiers who panic in battle and attempt to flee, putting the whole unit at risk.

On summary trial:

Soldiers who engage in unacceptable behaviour, such as robbery, revenge against civilians, rape, arson, murder of unarmed POWs and civilians.

POWs caught in the act of raping.

Spies.

Deserters.

After substantiated and public trial:

Enemy officers known for atrocities and war crimes.

Luís Henrique

[Regicollis]

No. Never. Under no circumstances.

Killing another human can only be justified in the most extreme cases of self-defence when there are no other options available.

With convicted criminals the option of incarceration is always an available alternative thus making state-sanctioned murder totally unjustifiable.

Furthermore no judicial system is infallible. If someone is wrongfully incarcerated he can always be released and receive an apology and a compensation if he turns out to be innocent. If he's dead there is nothing you can do to make up for the wrongful killing.

[l'Enfermé]

What is a "normal" circumstance for murder?

I mean in a post-revolutionary society, when things are stable, capital punishment should best be limited to premeditated murder. During a revolutionary period, though, in a time of more-or-less civil war, extending capital punishment to class-traitors and class-enemies is a reasonable response I'd say. Salus revolutionis suprema lex. The welfare of the revolution is the supreme law. I'd rather execute a hundred counter-revolutionaries than have to grieve the death of one communist worker because of their direct or indirect deeds. Yes, extend capital punishment even to deserters who endanger their comrades and forsake the revolution.

[Drosophila]

I mean in a post-revolutionary society, when things are stable, capital punishment should best be limited to premeditated murder. During a revolutionary period, though, in a time of more-or-less civil war, extending capital punishment to class-traitors and class-enemies is a reasonable response I'd say. Salus revolutionis suprema lex. The welfare of the revolution is the supreme law. I'd rather execute a hundred counter-revolutionaries than have to grieve the death of one communist worker because of their direct or indirect deeds. Yes, extend capital punishment even to deserters who endanger their comrades and forsake the revolution.

Jesus christ you are weird. This is why I think people who fetishize violence and "revolutionary terror" should be kept at arm's length.

[Deity]

With no trial:

Soldiers who panic in battle and attempt to flee, putting the whole unit at risk.

On summary trial:

Soldiers who engage in unacceptable behaviour, such as robbery, revenge against civilians, rape, arson, murder of unarmed POWs and civilians.

POWs caught in the act of raping.

Spies.

Deserters.

After substantiated and public trial:

Enemy officers known for atrocities and war crimes.

Luís Henrique

Going Back to the good ol' days of killing friendlies for not wanting to fight anymore?

[l'Enfermé]

Jesus christ

Does not exist.

you are weird.

You are an excellent comrade and I regret that you do not like me anymore.

This is why I think people who fetishize violence and "revolutionary terror"

I neither fetishize nor like violence or terror. I'm generally put off by violence and terror, to me, is a very tragic thing, regardless of its necessity. Make these assumptions about someone else, comrade.

should be kept at arm's length.

All the weird dangerous ones are dangerous even from a few feet away, I'm afraid.

[Deity]

I mean in a post-revolutionary society, when things are stable, capital punishment should best be limited to premeditated murder. During a revolutionary period, though, in a time of more-or-less civil war, extending capital punishment to class-traitors and class-enemies is a reasonable response I'd say. Salus revolutionis suprema lex. The welfare of the revolution is the supreme law. I'd rather execute a hundred counter-revolutionaries than have to grieve the death of one communist worker because of their direct or indirect deeds. Yes, extend capital punishment even to deserters who endanger their comrades and forsake the revolution.

So you believe in the barbaric kill a man to Show killing is wrong then?

Also thats 2 of you that have said you'll shoot deserters. Really? That warrants death?

[l'Enfermé]

So you believe in the barbaric kill a man to Show killing is wrong then?

Please spare us the sensationalism. "Barbaric"? Come on.

Also thats 2 of you that have said you'll shoot deserters. Really? That warrants death?

It's regrettable indeed, but disciple is necessary to maintain cohesive armies. Not that I feel sympathetic towards cowards that desert their comrades.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

I voted that there should be no instances of execution, by this I obviously mean after the revolution. During the revolution, some violence will obviously be necessary, but "execute" implies that they have been captured and are subject to a tribunal. In such a situation, I feel that it is far more desirable to work towards rehabilitation etc.

[Deity]

Please spare us the sensationalism. "Barbaric"? Come on.


It's regrettable indeed, but disciple is necessary to maintain cohesive armies. Not that I feel sympathetic towards cowards that desert their comrades.

Maybe primitive or uncivilized would be better?

And you don't feel sympathy towards a comrade who flees? You don't seem to hold human life in a high light. Maybe he's a "coward", but when we start killing our own people the revolution is a losing battle from that point.

[Art Vandelay]

Also thats 2 of you that have said you'll shoot deserters. Really? That warrants death?

Look no one here is attempting to engage in hard man posturing. I'd be scared shitless in any sort of combat situation; I also probably wouldn't make a very good soldier in any context. But I have always been interested in military history since I was younger and it isn't some sort of blood lust issue, there is a reason why almost every army in history has dealt with deserters in that fashion.

When you abandon your post in a combat situation, by fleeing because you are scared for your life (which is a pretty normal reaction in my opinion, I'm scared, so I'll run) your decision effects everyone around you. A person (or a small group) fleeing in a tactical and pivotal moment during a military confrontation could result in the deaths of many, many people (not to mention the loss of the entire war). A military is composed of units of varying sizes, when it comes down to it, their strength lies in their ability to preform as a unit and the fact that as individuals they fully know that the guy to their right and their left have their back.

I don't believe in conscription, so yes when you decide to join up into a military force, you do so at your own will. No one forced you into the position. When you then turn your back on your comrades, leaving them potentially to die, that is grounds for capital punishment in a civil war scenario, in my opinion. If you look at almost all great military leaders in history, they had little empathy for deserters. And in a future revolutionary situation, they would not only be deserters, but class traitors.

An army cannot be built without reprisals. Masses of men cannot be led to death unless the army command has the death-penalty in its arsenal. So long as those malicious tailless apes that are so proud of their technical achievements—the animals that we call men—will build armies and wage wars, the command will always be obliged to place the soldiers between the possible death in the front and the inevitable one in the rear. And yet armies are not built on fear. The Tsar's army fell to pieces not because of any lack of reprisals. In his attempt to save it by restoring the death-penalty, Kerensky only finished it. Upon the ashes of the great war, the Bolsheviks created a new army. These facts demand no explanation for any one who has even the slightest knowledge of the language of history. The strongest cement in the new army was the ideas of the October revolution, and the train supplied the front with this cement. - Leon Trotsky.

[l'Enfermé]

Maybe primitive or uncivilized would be better?

Yeah we non-Aryan third-world Muslims are so uncivilized and primitive.

lol I'm just joking, not actually accusing you of racism. Civil war is not some sort of banquet of civilised monocled men in tuxedos or a gentlemen's club, don't be silly

And you don't feel sympathy towards a comrade who flees?

To an extent, but that is overshadowed by contempt.

You don't seem to hold human life in a high light.

Not the lives of deserters that abandon their comrades, no.

Maybe he's a "coward", but when we start killing our own people the revolution is a losing battle from that point.

They stop being our people when they desert the revolution, comrade.

[Kindness]

That just goes to show why war is insane and the epitome of counter revolutionary action. War is simply murder on a mass scale, regardless of why it is fought. "Revolutionary war" is an oxymoron.

[Leftsolidarity]

"Revolutionary war" is an oxymoron.

No it's not. How would that be an oxymoron? It's class war.

[Deity]

"Place the soldiers between a possible death in the front and an inevitable one in the rear" I don't think that's the kind of army I'd like to fight in.

Just because war is a brutal time does not mean you must lose your humanity. If I know that any of the men around me would kill me for fleeing how could I believe they were true comrades of mine?

You all seem to seriously lack empathy, which is something the world desperately needs more of

[Luís Henrique]

"Place the soldiers between a possible death in the front and an inevitable one in the rear" I don't think that's the kind of army I'd like to fight in.

I wouldn't like to fight in any army. If you would, then either there is something wrong with you, or you haven't thoroughly thought about what fighting in an army means and entails.

But between what I like and what I know is necessary, there is a huge difference.

Just because war is a brutal time does not mean you must lose your humanity.

No, you shouldn't. But you have to use it wisely.

One soldier that panics in battle and is not immediately shot dead might lead to the whole unit panicking, fleeing, and being slaughtered by the enemy. What is the most humane action, killing one soldier in panic, or having hundreds killed for not being able to take the first action?

If I know that any of the men around me would kill me for fleeing how could I believe they were true comrades of mine?

You don't know if anyone is a true comrade of yours; you trust they are. The minute one of them turns their back on the enemy and flees in panic, he or she has betrayed your trust, abandoned you, and proved not a comrade.

And you don't feel sympathy towards a comrade who flees?

Of course I do. It is the obvious thing to do, what most people would do if allowed. And it would result in the death of all, or most. That's why you cannot allow it to happen.

You don't seem to hold human life in a high light.

Yes, I do. This being part of the reason I know killing panicking soldiers immediately is necessary: because the panicking soldier isn't the only life to take into account.

Maybe he's a "coward",

All of us are cowards, and all of us are brave people. But shooting a fleeing soldier isn't a punishment for his or her cowardice: it is a measure for maintaining discipline and keeping the unit able to fight - and consequently, able to protect all of its members.

but when we start killing our own people the revolution is a losing battle from that point.

Maybe so, but if we allow our squads to disintegrate in panic, then the revolution is lost anyway.

You all seem to seriously lack empathy, which is something the world desperately needs more of

It is an awful decision, one that I hope never having to take. But it is a necessary one. Only a moral monster would take pleasure in doing such a thing. But the alternative - allowing the unit to disorganise and be slaughtered - is even less empathetic, and only a moral monster would be able to live with the burden of such crime upon his or her conscience.

Luís Henrique

[Taters]

"Place the soldiers between a possible death in the front and an inevitable one in the rear" I don't think that's the kind of army I'd like to fight in.

Just because war is a brutal time does not mean you must lose your humanity. If I know that any of the men around me would kill me for fleeing how could I believe they were true comrades of mine?

You all seem to seriously lack empathy, which is something the world desperately needs more of

War requires iron determination. Desertion is serious; it demoralizes the troops and encourages other weak-willed people to do the same if it goes unpunished (whether that punishment must necessarily be death can be debated).

But talking about "revolutionary wars" -meaning this "Side A and Side B" stuff- and how we would punish deserters is the purest form of leftist masturbation. You may as well start writing a fanfic.

[Deity]

So you seem to be leaning on a preemptive strike attitude, which I think is also ridiculous. The angle you're coming from would seem reasonable if it wasn't taking a mans life that you were talking about.

If the whole unit retreats do we just gun them down too? Don't want them causing an even bigger panic, right?

[Deity]

War requires iron determination. Desertion is serious; it demoralizes the troops and encourages other weak-willed people to do the same if it goes unpunished (whether that punishment must necessarily be death can be debated).

But talking about "revolutionary wars" -meaning this "Side A and Side B" stuff- and how we would punish deserters is the purest form of leftist masturbation. You may as well start writing a fanfic.

I'm well aware that this is petty and childish scenario conversation we're having. Thats my point about them saying they would kill people who fled; They seem to be playing the maybe game and not acknowledging that they just said they would kill somebody if the situation came up.