The Gaming Den

I don't get why Spain doesn't put their biggest gun against Catalunia independence on the table at once. It'd surely deflate the movement instantly:

The moment Catalunia becomes its own country, FC Barcelona loses the right to play on La Liga. I don't think the catalans fully appreciated the gravity of their situation yet.

Where the fuck did murdering Catalonians come from? Are there unreported dead?

Mask_De_H wrote:Are there unreported dead?

How would we know?

As far as 'anyone killed', no, probably not. Fewer than 1000 people were injured and at least two people were hospitalized with serious injuries.

Frank specifically is endorsing the use of lethal force:

FrankTrollman wrote:It's a rebellion plain and simple and the Spanish government is within its rights to start shooting people.

The Spanish government has not actually risen to that level of violence yet.

I don't think anyone has talked about murdering Catalans outside of a historical context or a hypothetical escalation. We are talking about a 'hypothetical escalation' because of this:

FrankTrollman wrote:The Catalonian regional authority declared that they don't have to follow Spanish laws and aren't going to. They have already risen in revolt. Once a province is in open rebellion, all actions are wartime actions. That is the beginning and end of the discussion. If you want to talk about responses being proportionate to the crimes you have already failed to grasp the situation. There is no crime. There is no proportionality. It's war.

New update:

Spanish Court Moves to Pre-empt Catalan Independence Declaration

New York Times wrote: BARCELONA, Spain — Spain’s constitutional court on Thursday suspended a session of the Catalan regional Parliament scheduled for next week in which lawmakers were expected to approve a unilateral declaration of independence.

The court’s decision further escalated the conflict over Catalonia, which held a referendum on independence last Sunday that Spanish courts had declared illegal and ordered suspended. The Madrid central government sent thousands of police officers to block the vote, leaving hundreds of people wounded in clashes.

Not letting your democratically elected representatives meet is a problem.

Kaelik wrote: Your official position is the genocide of Catalanese is somehow the correct course of action because their self appointed political leaders had an opinion poll.

The obvious corollary is that Indians choosing political leaders, skipping the opinion poll, and declaring they wanted independence was itself an act of rebellion that justifies the genocide of all Indians.

I don't want to be like Chamomile, because he's a twatshitter, but you really need to go back and read my actual posts, because this shit is not acceptable. I already made clear my position on the distinction between breaking the law and rejecting law. You may not agree with it, and you're welcome to say that I'm a monster or whatever the fuck, but you don't get to pretend that my position isn't what it is. You can't tell me that my official position is different from what my stated position.

Or rather, you can, but you're an obvious asshole when you try.

deaddmwalking wrote:Advocating for Independence is not 'open rebellion'.

This is true. There are lots of things you can do that agitate for secession that are not open rebellion. You can even have a peaceful separation of states under some circumstances. But if you reject the laws and norms of the country in order to do that, you also lose the protections of those laws and norms.

deaddmwalking wrote:The state has an obligation to protect citizens...

Of course it does. But it does not have an obligation to protect the citizens of other states.

As Zinegata pointed out, the Catalonian independence people are badly out of their depth. They are trying to play in the big boy pool but they have no idea what that actually means. If they get to take state-like actions and make territorial demands outside the legal framework of Spain, then Spain gets to treat them like a foreign state. A state which is unilaterally demanding the annexation of twelve thousand square miles of Spanish territory.

You can do civil disobedience, where you break laws you disagree with and submit to the statutory penalties and garner sympathy or just plain grind the system to a halt by having enough people do it. Stuff like the Birmingham Bus Strike led by Rosa Parks is a fine example of that sort of thing. But that requires you to acknowledge that the laws do in fact exist, even though you're opposed to them. If you come at it from the other side where you refuse to acknowledge the laws and just start invading buses and refuse to submit to legal authorities at all - then you're just an invader. The state can respond however it likes, using as much deadly force as seems expedient.

The demands that Catalonia has made are demands that you need to back up with an army. Once you've gone the "no taxation without representation" route, you'd better be prepared to fight and die. And it's obvious that the Catalonian separatists are not prepared to do that.

Here are the choices:

• Follow the laws. Make exactly as much progress as the legal framework you are in allows you to based on the amount of votes and resources you have.
• Break the laws. Submit to the statutory penalties, hope to get public sympathy by demonstrating the laws are unjust. Remain under the protection of the rest of the laws.
• Reject the laws. Do whatever you want, take whatever is within reach. Enjoy no protections whatsoever because now you're in a coup scenario and anyone can use as much deadly force as they want.

The Catalonian Independence movement has chosen option 3. Despite the fact that they seem completely unprepared to fight a coup and can't possibly win.

-Username17

Option 3

That's the part that I think you're wrong about. At least, initiating the referendum doesn't strike me as a coup. Even if you accept that the people initiating the referendum are breaking laws, the people voting are not necessarily in violation of any law. It appears to me that they were told a vote was happening by their duly elected officials.

Spain is making a major tactical error. They should have let the referendum happen instead of trying to cancel it. Then they should have let the parliament vote to secede. Then they should have rounded up the people who voted for secession and hung them as traitors.

If you believe lethal force was justified during the referendum (two states at war) you're simultaneously advocating that Catalonia is Independent (and thus the reason that they can treat it as a war). While Catalan isn't a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, you'd still expect that lethal force against civilian populations is something to avoid. So pretty much I can't see why you're going full crazy town and saying lethal force was justified. It's not.

FrankTrollman wrote:

Kaelik wrote: Your official position is the genocide of Catalanese is somehow the correct course of action because their self appointed political leaders had an opinion poll.

The obvious corollary is that Indians choosing political leaders, skipping the opinion poll, and declaring they wanted independence was itself an act of rebellion that justifies the genocide of all Indians.

I don't want to be like Chamomile, because he's a twatshitter, but you really need to go back and read my actual posts, because this shit is not acceptable. I already made clear my position on the distinction between breaking the law and rejecting law. You may not agree with it, and you're welcome to say that I'm a monster or whatever the fuck, but you don't get to pretend that my position isn't what it is. You can't tell me that my official position is different from what my stated position.

Well I mean, you can spin whatever lies you want.

But the fact is that the Indian Self Rule Movement was an independence movement, not a rejection of salt laws but an acceptance of British Rule. No matter how much you lie about it.

So your claim that "some guys declared a vote would occur" means that every single Catalan person should be shot dead tomorrow and the earth salted, inescapably leads to the conclusion that when a bunch of Indians said "we already did the voting thing, we decided we reject your authority to pass laws and demand that you get the fuck out and we will make our own laws" that your claim that rebellion is war inescapably leads to the conclusion that all the Indians should have been genocided.

Again, there's a really easy solution: "the Spanish government shouldn't genocide the Catalan people because of the actions of Spanish Government Officials, it should just try those officials for violation of their trust" but you are so committed to justifying genocide on the Catalan people as totally okay that you won't do that.

deaddmwalking wrote:Option 3

That's the part that I think you're wrong about. At least, initiating the referendum doesn't strike me as a coup. Even if you accept that the people initiating the referendum are breaking laws, the people voting are not necessarily in violation of any law. It appears to me that they were told a vote was happening by their duly elected officials.

Spain is making a major tactical error. They should have let the referendum happen instead of trying to cancel it. Then they should have let the parliament vote to secede. Then they should have rounded up the people who voted for secession and hung them as traitors.

If you believe lethal force was justified during the referendum (two states at war) you're simultaneously advocating that Catalonia is Independent (and thus the reason that they can treat it as a war). While Catalan isn't a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, you'd still expect that lethal force against civilian populations is something to avoid. So pretty much I can't see why you're going full crazy town and saying lethal force was justified. It's not.

Kaelik's excuse is that he's a lying asshole, what's yours?

I literally and specifically never advocated for the wholesale murder of all the Catalonian civilians. I only noted that the path the separatists had chosen was one of rebellion and that once you do that you have no legal protections.

If you start a revolution, you need to be prepared to fight and die, because it's unreasonable to expect anything else to happen. The leaders of the Catalonian Independence movement are basically like those people who encourage people to become suicide bombers. They are asking their people to go become martyrs.

-Username17

By voting in the referendum?

In what way are the voters not civilians? Should Britain have shot every American who agreed with the revolution, no matter what they had done or not done to support it?

And voting that you do not belong to your country anymore is not rebellion?
And what happens if they were to actually get to do it, follow through and actually get their own brexit lite going? They are in the center of spanish territory. And when they no longer belong to spain, then what options does it have left?
Spain could simply allow them to secede and then let them starve by closing the borders all around untill negotiations that have ended satisfactory to spain have taken place.
And the satisfactory to spain is going to be:"back into the fold" i suspect.
And even if they did not actually just hard close the borders, just hike up the taxes on stuff they need to import. Starvation follows.
And then we get to the part where we ask: how much on the catalonian landscape actually belongs to catalonia and how much of it was not paid by catalonia but by spain? For example airports and harbours.
Paid for by spain? Spain could demand the money for that or simply shut them down, effectively barricading catalonia in again.
Seriously. If you do not have a means of stopping such things from happening, then you should not even think about trying to secede.
Worse comes to worst?
They secede. Spain declares casus belli and invades with their military.
They go back to belonging to spain. But minus several hundred to thousand people killed in the meantime.
Expect executions of the rebel leaders under martial law.

TiaC wrote:In what way are the voters not civilians? Should Britain have shot every American who agreed with the revolution, no matter what they had done or not done to support it?

This is gibberish.

Spain is not currently slaughtering voters. They haven't killed anyone. They have the option of lethal force. And they have brought armed officers in large numbers. They have the option and the capability to slaughter separatists, which they as yet have not employed.

This is what the Spanish government did:



Now, what the hell are you talking about?

-Username17

Stahlseele wrote:They are in the center of spanish territory. And when they no longer belong to spain, then what options does it have left?
Spain could simply allow them to secede and then let them starve by closing the borders all around untill negotiations that have ended satisfactory to spain have taken place.

I'm... pretty sure Catalonia isn't in the center, but in the northeast. And on the coast. They would totally have not-with-Spain borders if they successfully seceded.

TiaC wrote:In what way are the voters not civilians? Should Britain have shot every American who agreed with the revolution, no matter what they had done or not done to support it?

Hey now, voting "no I want to stay apart of spain" and in fact, not voting, are also "rebellion" that results in Spain being totally allowed to murder you according to Frank Trollman.

Guys, guys

Spain didn't send the army to suppress the catalans. They did send the police. While you're bitching back and forth about state theorycraft, it's pretty much clear that Madrid is treating whats happening there as crime, not rebellion.

You should look instead about what the separatists are trying to accomplish, because for me, it looks like like senseless nation breaking: I don't think there's a chance in hell of an independent Catalonia getting accepted on the UE or Nato, for example. So what exactly is the step B of their master plan other than poverty and isolation?

Voting not to be a part of the country you live in is not rebellion. If it had happened in the United States, it would have been protected Free Speech. Everything up to the point of actually breaking laws is kosher. The 'illegal referendum' wasn't illegal. It's an opinion survey and by itself it meant nothing.

First definition of rebellion is:
open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government or ruler.

This clearly did not meet the criteria.

Any federated system is going to have a dynamic where some people want decisions made locally and others want them made at the top and applied to everyone. I don't expect that Catalan independence has much merit, but there are probably concerns about making some decisions more locally. I don't know why, but a referendum is a good place to start.

Yes, dissolving political ties is a messy business. It's also been done lots of times and for lots of reasons. If Catalonia successfully declares independence, they could be invaded and conquered by Spain or anyone else, but that's a long way down a dubious slippery slope.

nockermensch wrote:Spain didn't send the army to suppress the catalans. They did send the police. While you're bitching back and forth about back and forth about state theorycraft, it's pretty much clear that Madrid is treating whats happening there as crime, not rebellion.

Do you think Frank Trollman is Felipe the Sixth or something? Has it occurred to you that the people saying WTF Frank actually mean WTF Frank, because he went on a genocidal Assad-esque rant about how "this means war" and no amount of force would not be justified in crushing the Catalan's (oddly nonviolent) "rebellion?"

I mean, yes, Spain's decision to use force to obstruct a referendum instead of allowing it as a nonbinding advisory, declaring the results invalid, and implicitly challenging Catalonia to militarize (they won't) is dickish, and also deserving of criticism. The consensus at this point is that Spain's policies are making the independence movement stronger, which makes the use of extreme force down the road increasingly inevitable. Bad policy kills people example number 78492985883, and if you care about people not dying you should criticize bad policy when appropriate. But in the context of bad policy, Spain hasn't got shit on Frank Trollman and the thing that has truly dropped our fucking jaws is his psychopathic bullshit.

What's happening in Catalonia is an illegal referendum and some nonviolent protests. Frank Trollman called that 'war' ver-fucking-batim and said that the proportionality of Spain's response was no longer a concern (because war). If you woke up tomorrow to read about the leaders of the Catalan government and Catalan independence movement being assassinated via sniper rifle bullet through the brain as part of a coordinated series of Spanish military strikes, would your response be "sure, makes sense" or "holy shit since when did Spain turn into Syria?"

deaddmwalking wrote:The 'illegal referendum' wasn't illegal. It's an opinion survey and by itself it meant nothing.

This doesn't follow. It's certainly not rebellion, but it was set up by officials acting based on a simple majority when constitutionally they require a 2/3rds.

That's still illegal, and if that were a thing that happened in the US, if some state passed a law that violated the federal constitution or the state constitution, it would go through the legal process and be found to be an improper application of legislative power.

Of course, when the SC finds that for example, the state of California has passed some law that violates either the federal constitution or the supremacy clause, what we don't do is send in the army to shoot them all for rebellion.

EDIT: To be clear, according to Frank Trollman "them all" is "every citizen of California" in this event, not even you know, the legislature that actually did the illegal thing, but just literally any random citizen of California at any time because WAR.

angelfromanotherpin wrote:

Stahlseele wrote:They are in the center of spanish territory. And when they no longer belong to spain, then what options does it have left?
Spain could simply allow them to secede and then let them starve by closing the borders all around untill negotiations that have ended satisfactory to spain have taken place.

I'm... pretty sure Catalonia isn't in the center, but in the northeast. And on the coast. They would totally have not-with-Spain borders if they successfully seceded.

Yeah! They'd border France and Andorra! (And yes, definitely the Mediterranean. But I'm liking Andorra.)

Holding the vote isn't illegal (because it doesn't have the power of law and is itslef meaningless). Trying to do something with the results would be (because there is no established process for dissolution). Saying a vote happened and now we're independent requires the response of 'nuh-uh'

deaddmwalking wrote:Holding the vote isn't illegal (because it doesn't have the power of law and is itslef meaningless). Trying to do something with the results would be (because there is no established process for dissolution). Saying a vote happened and now we're independent requires the response of 'nuh-uh'

No, having the vote is also illegal.

California has a fucking process for putting a referendum on the ballot. If someone doesn't have the signatures, putting something on the ballot is in fact illegal, in that it's the person putting the stuff on the ballot violating their actual duties as an officer of the state, and that's illegal.

Having the vote is illegal. It's just not a crime by the voting public, or the people of catalan, even the ones that don't vote, and it's not rebellion, it's some Spanish government officials acting not within their authority, which is still illegal.

deaddmwalking wrote:Advocating for Independence is not 'open rebellion'. A non-binding vote is a form of protest, not a rebellion. Actions following the vote might or might not qualify as open rebellion.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but it is open rebellion because there is nothing in international law that actually stipulates how new countries may be created out of existing ones.

Look, I understand a lot of people think that you can hold referendums on independence because there have been a couple of recent examples - such as the Scottish one.

The problem is that all of these referendums were only able to occur with the consent of the original nation holding sovereignty over the land. Before the referendum of 2014 could take place for instance the British government had to already grant permission in 2013.

In cases where a country became independent despite the wishes of the original sovereign power - such as Aceh - the threat of First World level firepower is required. Indonesia was totally running roughshod over Aceh and its independence movement until the First World decided to make it an issue and send people with guns. Years passed and thousands of people died before the "Free World" decided to intervene and force Indonesia to give up Aceh.

Worse, there are dozens of other hotspots in the world - such as Mindanao in the Philippines - were thousands have died for independence movements which the "international community" has basically ignored. Because again, as horrible as thousands of people getting hurt or killed may be, international "law" is still largely non-existent and cases like this are mostly governed by the Westphalia Principle.

Now, to be fair - an individual who is peacefully protesting in support of independence is not in "open rebellion". They are still technically covered by domestic law; albeit in most nations they can very arguably be charged with sedition and in the remainder of the world they would simply be sent to a Gulag-equivalent and shot.

However, we are not talking about individual protesters here. The Catalan government made it clear that they were going to completely ignore Spain's Supreme Court and that they are still pushing for a unilateral declaration of independence.

That makes the situation not a matter of domestic law where American lawyers can endlessly try to play semantic gymnastics to prove 1+1=3. It instead becomes a matter of international law, which means the aforementioned "rules of the jungle" apply because again people have a very poor idea of how the rules governing nation-states is still largely "Might makes right".

This is again why - despite my misgivings over the police actions - a huge part of the blame lies with the Catalan government and the Catalans who elected them. They wanted to be a nation without understanding what being a nation actually means - such as having an actual police force and military to protect their own people which would come out of their citizen's pockets.

Really, it's the same kind of stupid and entitled mindset as the Brexiteers who want to "leave" the European Union but still get all the perks of being an EU member. You can't have it just because you want it; because other people already own what you want. And on matters of international law, having armies or friends who have them are what counts, not any "ideals" or appeals to non-existent laws.