Khadr allways catches my attention in the news.

[DogOnPorch]

You're the one who is full of 'nonsensical statements'. It simply does not occur to you that there was a time before people of Pashtun decent practiced Islam. For example during Alexander's time...there was no such thing as Islam. Did not exist. However, Hinduism and other assorted smaller religions did. There was a period of time where Hinduism took a back seat...this was the period of the reign of the Mughal's...Muslims...also generally referred to inaccurately as Mongols...to an Indian Hindu, anybody invading on horseback. Up until the mid-19th century, the Mughals pulled the strings on the entire subcontinent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahadur_Shah_II

Edited March 3, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[jbg]

If combatants are breaking the "rules of war" then what is the issue with noncombatants doing the same?

Then combatants should be charged with war crimes period, and most are....The media is full of NATO pers charged with breaking them, including Canadian Capt Semeau, along with a long list of US service pers.

The Issue with Non Combatants is for their protection, get rid of the rules and you will open it up for armies to ethic cleanse entire nations....Civilians will have no protection at all...

Well we have a problem in that area, The governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan either have little control over the regions or aid and abet the terrorists. The terrorists and the local population are indistinguishable by design. The terrorists in face use the population as "human shields" sot that it is impossible to sort out the innocents from the combatants.

People such as you are forgetting that this situation started with attacks on Western interests, often in the West. Examples are WTC 1, on 2/26/1993, the embassy attacks in 1998 (in non-Muslim countries Kenya and Tanzania), the attacks on 9/11/2001 (World Trade Center and Pentagon), 3/11/2004 (Madrid trains), 7/11/2005 (London Subway) and some attacks that were foiled along the way.

These countries are part of the "international community" to the extent of drawing financial benefits for their leaders from the U.N., and condemnation of the West's efforts to defend itself. They do not accept the obligation to protect other countries from groups operating within their borders.

I The rules are simple, resist and you become a illegal combatant,and face

war crimes.... Want to resist join the F...ing Military....it's really

that simple....

You're seriously not making sense.

I The rules are simple, resist and you become a illegal combatant,and face

war crimes.... Want to resist join the F...ing Military....it's really

that simple....

You're seriously not making sense.

[shortlived]

Well we have a problem in that area, The governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan either have little control over the regions or aid and abet the terrorists. The terrorists and the local population are indistinguishable by design. The terrorists in face use the population as "human shields" sot that it is impossible to sort out the innocents from the combatants.

People such as you are forgetting that this situation started with attacks on Western interests, often in the West. Examples are WTC 1, on 2/26/1993, the embassy attacks in 1998 (in non-Muslim countries Kenya and Tanzania), the attacks on 9/11/2001 (World Trade Center and Pentagon), 3/11/2004 (Madrid trains), 7/11/2005 (London Subway) and some attacks that were foiled along the way.

These countries are part of the "international community" to the extent of drawing financial benefits for their leaders from the U.N., and condemnation of the West's efforts to defend itself. They do not accept the obligation to protect other countries from groups operating within their borders.

You're seriously not making sense.

You're seriously not making sense.

He said the military is dishonourable and wants to torture civillians who fight them because it makes their job of killing people in camouflage harder. (even though the US and other western countries use non uniformed armed combatants as part of their operations contrary to the rules of war)

"Resistors to Occupation" arn't breaking "their country's law" so the occupying military force needs to subject them to their law, because if they arn't just killed, they don't want people to think it is ok to fight them and for nothing to happen as a result.

As their acts arn't a violation of domestic law, so the military needs to invent their own code that insures civillians can be treated anyway they want for the psyops factor, and inhumanity. As opposed to people who are easy to pick off because they are easily identifiable in standard miltiary gear. Militaries hate guerilla war because they are often effective against technologically superior forces like the west and nato.

Edited March 3, 2013 by shortlived

[DogOnPorch]

Militaries hate guerilla war because they are often effective against technologically superior forces like the west and nato.

So much so that, like the Viet Cong before them, there are practically no more home grown Taliban. They have to rely on imports. Seriously...do you want to be the dude that gets to hold the cell phone?