0
   

Terrorism's Silent Partner at the U.N.

 
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 08:19 am
McGentrix wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
McG wrote:
There is a huge difference between a county's military actions during a war and the actions of illegal enemy combatants. Do not try to compare them.

How so?


Well, the easy answer is that one force is ILLEGAL!


By whose laws?

The American Revolutionaries were definiately illegal. Calling people fighting against an occupying power "illegal" because they are breaking laws set up by the occupyer is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 08:30 am
I wasn't aware the UN existed and had created laws defining legal and illegal combatants in 1776.

I know in 2004 we have them.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 08:39 am
eBrown...you shouldn't be taking to an American conservative about our Revolutionary War.

The American conservatives of that day were on the wrong side...just as American conservatives have been on the wrong side of every major issue this country has ever faced.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 09:04 am
McG,

I didn't think you were such a big fan of the UN, but let's go with this.

Is a citizen using weapons as part of a militia to attack military targets of an occupying force "illegal"?

If you feel this is against UN law please give a reference to support this.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 09:45 am
ebrown_p wrote:
McG,

I didn't think you were such a big fan of the UN, but let's go with this.

Is a citizen using weapons as part of a militia to attack military targets of an occupying force "illegal"?

If you feel this is against UN law please give a reference to support this.


Read this thread.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 09:59 am
That thread doesn't answer my question...

If my country were attacked and occupied by a foreign power, I just might join an armed milita which, being under an occupation, is very possibly not going to be very organized.

As part of this militia I would feel justified in attacking military targets of this foreign power.

Am I wrong to feel this way?
Can you cite a "UN law" that would make this illegal?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 10:05 am
From the thread I just directed you to.
____________________________________________________________

International Rules About Soldiers

The Geneva Conventions and supplementary protocols make a distinction between combatants and civilians.

The two groups must be treated differently by the warring sides and, therefore, combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians.

Although this obligation benefits civilians by making it easier for the warring sides to avoid targeting non-combatants, soldiers also benefit because they become immune from prosecution for acts of war.

For example, a civilian who shoots a sholdier may be liable for murder while a soldier who shoots an enemy soldier and is captured may not be punished.

In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them.

The exceptions are medical and religious personnel, who are considered non-combatants even though they may wear uniforms. Medical personnel may also carry small arms to use in self-defense if illegally attacked.

The other exception are mercenaries, who are specifically excluded from protections. Mercenaries are defined as soldiers who are not nationals of any of the parties to the conflict and are paid more than the local soldiers.

are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.

Combatants who do fall within the guidelines of the Geneva Conventions
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Oct, 2004 10:29 am
Point taken.

You are right about the Geneva Conventions requirement that combatants clear distinguish themselves from civilians and have a responsible command structure.

I could still imagine situations when I peronally would forego my Geneva convention protections to fight an occupation.

There are also interesting questions... if it is uniformed militia members planting and detonating roadside bombs against US targets, is this acceptable.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2004 10:14 pm
ebrown_p wrote:


Somehow the reverse seems to be happening. Russia is returning to its roots of brutal repression in ethnic conflicts, limits on rights and autocratic control of the press.

Strangely the US is following.


Russia is the most valuable ally we could possibly have in any sort of a war against Islammic terrorism, but it will require a bit of attitude adjustment on our own part. We cannot be in the position of telling them that our terrorists are terrorists and theirs are "freedom fighters".

Chechens are basically a bunch of savages and Russia would be doing the world a gigantic favor to round them up and put them back wherever Joe Stalin had them where they can practice their kidnapping and terrorism on seals and polar bears. Somebody got soft in the post Stalin age and let the bastards come back and what we've been reading about is the thanks they get for it. Putin left off the struggle with chechnya in 93 or thereabouts and an unholy wave of terrorism followed, forcing Russians to come back into the place.

Near as I can tell by reading, chechens are universally hated even by other muslims in the surrounding areas. Half of their place names are Mongolian in origin, meaning that whatever their original ethnic background is, politically and ideologically they're leftovers of the golden horde and crimean tartars who no doubt view Chengis Khan and Tamerlane the way we view Washington and Jefferson. Michail Lermontov writing in the 1830s noted that the primary industry of chechnya then as now was kidnapping people from surrounding areas and torturing them until relatives sent ransoms.

Basically, the fact that there are any of them alive at all indicates that Russians are nicer guys than Americans are. Unfortunately, as Chengis Khan and George Allen Sr. (the football coach) have observed, nice guys come in last. I'm hoping this changes for the Russians. I'm hoping that in a second Bush administration, our out of control state department gets decimated, that all the leftover clintonistas get ratted out and driven out as has happened in DOD already, and that our entire policy towards the slavic and orthodox worlds gets reversed. I hope to see Geoerge W. Bush tell president Putin that he (W.) no longer gives a rat's ass about chechens or chechnya, wishes Russia the best of luck in dealing with chechnya, and will sell them anything they might need to do that at cost or below cost.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 12:30 am
I've got a far simpler idea, and it doesn't involve rounding anyone up Stalin style:

How about leaving Chechnya to the Chechens?

Of course, it's not byzantine enough for Rube Goldbergian types, and certainly too dull for totalitarian/fascist types.
0 Replies
 
Armyvet35
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 03:13 am
That thread doesn't answer my question...

If my country were attacked and occupied by a foreign power, I just might join an armed milita which, being under an occupation, is very possibly not going to be very organized.

As part of this militia I would feel justified in attacking military targets of this foreign power.

Am I wrong to feel this way?
Can you cite a "UN law" that would make this illegal?


Thing is... when speaking of iraq, the insurgents are also killing civilians to make their point...car bombs executions. The insurgents are trained militia, picking on civilian targets more than military.. that is terrorism
0 Replies
 
Armyvet35
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 03:15 am
Frank in your eyes Bush started terrorism... lets go hold hands with the terrorists and give them what they want, bensd to their will, give in to their demands and way of life... then we can all be friends and have dinner on sundays... Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
Armyvet35
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 03:22 am
There are also interesting questions... if it is uniformed militia members planting and detonating roadside bombs against US targets, is this acceptable.

Are Iraqi civilians US Military targets? Or civilian workers aiding the Iraqi people US military targets that the uniformed militia attacking?

They are fighting like the cowards they are... come on out and have some fun, and quit hiding behind masks Smile our military is fighting with one hand on the gun and the Geneva Conventions card tying their other to their backs.

I never really agreed with the geneva conventions policies in regards to countries that dont honor it... free game in war if they dont honor it... like the insurgents in Iraq... they wwant a free for all our soldiers should be permitted to a free for all as well, but if we used those tactics I could see the headlines now:

American Soldiers roadside BOMBS killed 50 insurgents today outside of Baghdad...Americans are insisting those soldiers be brought to trial for their actions...

Yes I can see the bleeding hearts crying about it....
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 03:24 am
Armyvet35 wrote:
Frank in your eyes Bush started terrorism... lets go hold hands with the terrorists and give them what they want, bensd to their will, give in to their demands and way of life... then we can all be friends and have dinner on sundays... Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing


Nah...nothing I said could lead to this conclusion.

I do think Bush screwed up royally...and that his method of dealing with matters made things much, much worse.

I understand that you see things differently.

My hope...and my expectations...are that the majority of Americans will see things my way next Tuesday...and will vote Bush and his incompetent administration out of office.

I don't for a second think that Kerry will be able to straighten things out immediately...but I do think a Kerry administration will head us in a better direction.
0 Replies
 
Armyvet35
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 03:49 am
I will respect your opinion as well then... though I must agree to disagree with you...

If Bush gets elected life will go on as usual..

If Kerry gets elected the hubby will be taking a new job as a civilian....

Either way life is good....when you are with people you love Smile
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 03:37 pm
InfraBlue wrote:
I've got a far simpler idea, and it doesn't involve rounding anyone up Stalin style:

How about leaving Chechnya to the Chechens?



Like I noted, the Russians tried that in 93. It didn't work.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 04:11 pm
Quote:
but it was rebuffed by Algeria and Pakistan,


Oh, well, I guess we'll just have to drop Pakistan as an ally in the fight against terrorism.

Armyvet35:

Quote:
Thing is... when speaking of iraq, the insurgents are also killing civilians to make their point...car bombs executions. The insurgents are trained militia, picking on civilian targets more than military.. that is terrorism.


It would be rather disengenuous to clump the entire insurgency into ONE group, as there are MANY factors and different types of Iraqis AND foreign nationals who are fighting in this insurgency for varying reasons, with probably the only real collective purpose of getting rid of the American occupation. I'm sure there are MANY Iraqis fighting against the American occupation who are also NOT targeting innocent Iraqi citizens. I'm also sure there are Arab nationals who are USING Iraq now as a base of operations to probably further train their Al Qaeda members through multiple suicide bombings. There are ALSO loyal factions of Saddam who will kill EITHER the Arab Al Qaeda members as WELL as those Iraqis who are being used to form the new Iraqi military and police.

Why else has there ALWAYS been the possibility of civil war breaking out in that country? There are quite a few differences that STILL exist between the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Baathists, as WELL as Christian Iraqis, liberal progressive Iraqis, etc.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 09:53 pm
You have your history wrong, gunga. Putin wasn't in power in 1994, and Russia, under Boris Yeltsin, had been trying to overthrow Dzhokar Dudayev who had assumed power in the Republic of Chechnya, and declared independence in 1991, sparking a civil war there. Russia had been trying to overthrow Dudayev since '93, charging his government with political repression, corruption and involvement in international criminal activities, and backed armed opposition groups who employed terrorism in unsuccessful coup attempts. It was in December of 1994 that Yeltsin ordered a full scale invasion to crush the three-year-old Chechen independence bid.

Boris Yeltsin

First Chechnya War - 1994-1996
0 Replies
 
Armyvet35
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 09:06 am
True dookie...

But anyone targeting civilians instead of the military are cowards regardless of where they come.

Using civilians as shields is also cowardly, which has been done in many wars..

Terrorism is terrorism..
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2004 10:07 am
Quote:
Terrorism is terrorism..


Innocent Iraqi civilians whose families were killed by American troops will tell you that WE are the terrorists. So I guess in a sense, that quote is correct.

But it just isn't as black and white as conservatives want us to believe:

Quote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/10/26/MNG659G46T1.DTL

Nationalism drives many insurgents as they fight U.S.
'Terrorists,' only one element, experts say

-- Borzou Daragahi, Chronicle Foreign Service

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Baghdad -- Bush administration officials have drawn a consistent picture of the insurgents they have been fighting in the past 17 months of occupation: religious extremists, "dead-enders" associated with Saddam Hussein and foreign terrorists slipping across the country's porous borders.
But a wide range of interviews with Iraqis and U.S. officials here paints a starkly different portrait -- a growing, intensely nationalist resistance determined to remove U.S. forces and their Iraqi allies.

"Rather than vilifying those who don't like us and rather than simplistic rhetoric, shouldn't we be trying to understand what's going on, what many Iraqis are thinking and try to address their concerns?" said an American adviser in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Of course there are some terrible elements -- there are, clearly, some al Qaeda adherents and some who use terrorist methods as well as some garden- variety criminal elements -- but I just don't think it's good to categorize them all as 'terrorists.' "

Iraqi critics say U.S. failure to distinguish between different elements of the resistance has hampered its ability to secure the peace.

"One of the basic mistakes the coalition made was misdescribing those who had decided to take up arms against the coalition and now the current interim Iraqi government," says Sharif Ali bin Hussein, heir to Iraq's deposed king and head of Iraq's main monarchist party.

"The resistance is basically from groups that were marginalized and disenfranchised by the political process in Iraq when the United States decided to impose its exile friends from abroad without giving a role to ordinary Iraqis after liberation," he said.

Publicly, U.S. officials reject the notion that the resistance is being nourished primarily by Iraqi nationalism, or that it is growing.

"I don't think the resistance is spreading," said U.S. Army Brig. Gen. John DeFreitas. "There are a lot of places in Iraq that have bought into the political process. And they're participating. That's a form of nationalism also. I don't buy the idea that the resistance is nationalistic. Someone may jump up and attack and say that this is for Iraq. That doesn't make it so."

One counterinsurgency specialist based in Baghdad suggested there was "a marriage of convenience" between followers of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al- Zarqawi, criminals and some armed fighters.

In private conversations, however, some U.S. diplomats and military officials say they have begun to distinguish between fighters such as the Shiite Mahdi Army, loyal to rebel cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and groups like Zarqawi's, which have no interest in Iraq's future stability.

"We look at them all as forces from a simple perspective," one U.S. general said at a recent background briefing. "From my perspective, they're all threat forces. The motivation is different; the attacks are very similar."

Iraqi politicians say that the occupation authorities' focus on foreign terrorists as the main element in the insurgency leads to dangerous miscalculations. They cite an attack last month on the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar, a mostly ethnic Turkoman town crushed by the U.S. military in a battle that left at least 120 people dead and 200 injured.

U.S. forces, saying they were barraged by attacks from the area, blamed foreign fighters who had infiltrated a once-peaceful city. But Iraqis say the residents themselves had taken up arms, angered by months of U.S. raids on houses, arrests of innocent people and collective punishment.

"The situation was escalating," said Talat al-Wazan, an Iraqi nationalist politician based in Baghdad. "The people would go to police stations and ask for their relatives and hear nothing."

Tribal leaders telephoned Songul Shapouk, a Turkoman who serves on the National Assembly, and promised to turn over any foreign fighters to coalition forces, she said. Shapouk pleaded with Iraqi ministers and U.S. officials to halt the attack.

"We told (the Americans), there are not foreign fighters there," said Shapouk. "Don't attack this city. They are farmers. They are simple people."

Mohammad Qasoob Younis al-Jabouri, a leader of the Iraq Coalition Party, and a delegation of several other Iraqis traveled to the city, hoping to persuade the people to turn over any foreign extremists and stave off an attack, he said in a telephone interview from his home in Mosul.

But instead of encountering foreign religious fundamentalists, he found only his fellow countrymen -- about 70 fighters armed with Kalashnikovs and rocket-propelled grenades. Though he could not see all the insurgents, he knew the ones he met were locals because they all spoke Afriya, a Turkoman dialect infused with Kurdish and Arab words that is unique to the people of Tal Afar. The Turkoman are the third-largest ethnic group in Iraq after the Kurds and Arabs.

"There were no Syrians or Jordanians or foreigners," Jabouri said in a telephone conversation. "I saw only Iraqi citizens from Tal Afar."

The U.S. military, unmoved by the politicians' pleas, went ahead with the attack, inflicting heavy damage on Tal Afar. In a press release after the attack, the U.S. Army 2nd Infantry's Stryker Brigade declared a victory over foreign fighters who they said had turned Tal Afar into "a suspected haven for terrorists crossing into Iraq from Syria."

But U.S. officials privately conceded recently that no conclusive evidence of foreign fighters was found in Tal Afar, or later in Samarra, which was reportedly cleared of resistance fighters later in September.

Iraqi politicians do not dispute that foreign fighters are in their country. Posho Ibrahim, Iraq's deputy justice minister, said in an interview this month that the U.S. military has about 100 accused foreign fighters in custody.

But they do not see the foreigners as the driving force behind the resistance.

Sharif, who was among the exiled Iraqi opposition figures who initially supported the U.S. invasion, said the typical resistance fighter is a young man with a military background who opposes the occupation but -- unlike the foreign fighters motivated by religious extremism -- is not necessarily anti- American or anti-Western.

Wazan said the resistance is led by 20 to 30 armed groups across the country.

"This (insurgency) is a justified action for any people whose country is under occupation," he said.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 09:09:36