Barbaric attack in the U.K.

[eyeball]

I'm not being sardonic, I'm being logical.

[G Huxley]

One can be logical and sardonic at the same time.

[Guest]

Assuming the terrorists wanted to focus their attacks on people who are guilty of voting for imperialists how would they be able to tell them from those of us who aren't?

Exactly my point. How on earth are we supposed to know which Muslims support the actions mentioned in the OP?

[eyeball]

I don't know. It's just another riddle inside the conundrum we're in.

I'm betting it's only by actions alone that we'll ever really know for sure.

[G Huxley]

Bcsapper how about through the judiciary.

[Guest]

Bcsapper how about through the judiciary.

I don't see how they could find out how much support they had. And what kind of support it was. Ranging from providing inspiration, money and/or other logistical help, down to just agreeing with the action but never having any intention of ever carrying out such act themselves.

And to reiterate my position stated earlier, even if they had proof of support, I would much rather the courts handled it than the EDL.

[G Huxley]

The response for that would be through the intelligence agencies.

Edited May 30, 2013 by G Huxley

[GostHacked]

Army Guy, on 29 May 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

Yes the Military is the target, when on the battlefield, but this soldier was not on any battlefields was he , no he was down town London, in his own nation....All of which is agains't all the rules, and is a form of terrorism.....but then again they knew that did they not....

What about the rule to officially declare war on another nation? By that alone both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were 100% illegal on the international law scale because no declaration of war was put forth.

If there was an official declaration of war, then this UK soldier in the UK would have been more than a legitimate target.

Quote

Can you show me in any of the laws that i mentioned already where it states that drone attcks can not target high valued targets be it at a funeral or attempting to give aid to the injured....it would make your claim as a inter national war crime hold some water....

Violation of another nation's sovereign airspace. No official declaration of war against Pakistan or Yemen. Pakistan has made it quite clear they oppose the drone strikes. So in that case Pakistan has the legitimate right to declare war on the USA. Knowing that the USA would pound them into the ground in a full out war, Pakistan would hesitate to do this. And the USA knows that, so the drone strikes continue.

Quote

Afghanistan was invaded in early 2000 by a coalition of forces to take down those responsable for sept 11 ...later on the legitamate government of Afghanistan asked NATO to help with rebuiling the nation and to assist with control terrorists....they are terrorist because that is what the UN , Inter national law, and the genva convention label them as....I'm not shocked at anything these scumbags do, and you'll note that i'm not labeling all muslims scumbags , just those that use terror as a wpn to regain control over the people....How many Afghanis have you talked to, how many want the taliban back in control.....not very many....

We've been over this and the rule of law in Afghanistan is pretty much the same as under the Taliban, however with some minor improvements.

Quote

Invading and occuping.....you forgot that the legitimate government of Afghanistan ASK NATO....that is not an invasion nor is it an occupation.....

You mean the legitimate government recognized after the illegal ousting of the Taliban? I don't recall the Taliban asking for help from the USA. Kind of convenient to have a new government installed and have them claim that they are the ones who are authorizing the foreign forces to stay.

[Wilber]

That completely ignores the reality of asymettrical warfare, geurillas are never going to line up in a field and get mowed down with big signs saying shoot me!

Following that rule then NATO must not be allowed to use STEALTH technology. It goes both ways.

Stealth technology is a form of camouflage which is not the same as anonymity. You seem to think it is fair that off duty soldiers walking down the street in their own town should wear a big sign that says shoot me, but those who would shoot them should have anonymity.

As Army Guy stated, even though these guys obey none of the rules of war, nor respect the laws of the country in which they live, they will get the same protection and treatment under the law as any other person.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Wilber

[G Huxley]

Stealth technology is a form of camouflage which is not the same as anonymity. You seem to think it is fair that off duty soldiers walking down the street in their own town should wear a big sign that says shoot me, but those who would shoot them should have anonymity.

Stealth, drones etc. Are way more anonymous than attacking a guy on the street.

At least in the latter case its actually physically possible to fight back in the first place.

As Gosthacked said whose talking about the rules of war, when NATO doesn't even declare its wars and violates them regularly?

Edited May 30, 2013 by G Huxley

[Wilber]

Stealth, drones etc. Are way more anonymous than attacking a guy on the street.

Not really, if you are not identifiable before you attack someone, it is the same thing.

[G Huxley]

Well there you go, its the same thing.

[Army Guy]

NATO regularly attacks military and non-military people who are not on the battlefield. Most of its bombs fall on non-battlefield targets.

Case in point. You just completely contradicted your previous point.

Afghanistan and its people never attacked the US. All the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

I agree that AQ, Bin Laden should have been taken out by a series of diplomatic maneuvers and with special forces, but the Afghan war was unnecessary and counterproductive imo.

You can get a Quisling government to ask anything you want it to ask. The Karzai regime is ultra corrupt, is held together by paying off warlords, and for a time was not even democratically elected.

I will give you guys credit where credit is due. I met an Afghani refugee once who said that they like the Canadian soldiers, because they help the people as you said, unlike the Americans which he said are dangerous and just go around shooting people. However not every Afghani is going to see things the same way. When a people are invaded a signficant portion of them are likely to fight back, and that was Bin Laden's trap of luring the west into Afghanistan in a conflict that could only be damaging to it in the long term.

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not calling the Taliban angels, and am well aware of their heinous human rights abuses, but the victims of the Taliban are certainly not the only victims in this conflict. In fact the greatest refugee exodus, perhaps up to two million followed the NATO attack on Afghanistan, thousands have died in the conflict on all sides, and the country is still torn apart, and fractured.

"Before you judge me and other soldiers perhaps you should do alittle research.....goggle is a wonderful thing"

Forget google, I've read excellent books on the history of Afghanistan, and seen excellent documentaries.

If you haven't read it, I'd recommend the book "The Great Game," by Peter Hopkirk, and also the 2 part series called "The Great Game" by Rory Stewart (former governor of Southern Iraq), which you can watch on youtube. Another excellent book I read on Afghanistan was called The punishment of virtue by Sarah Chayes.

Your failing to get one of your own pionts, the entire country is a battlefield, Targeting is extremily hard because the bad guys fail to clearly indentify themselfs, instead blending in with the same people to whom they are supposily fighting for, which indangers inocent citizens.....Hence why the laws governing warfare make this illigal. That being said attacks can still be carried out as long as colaterial damage is limited, that decision can be taken by anyone in command.

No, you are the one that said these acts were again'st inter national law , when they are not.

The taliban regime at the time refused to hand over Bin Ladin and his merry crew, in fact they said they were under they're protection, and they would defend them if attacked.....US and coalition forces agreed it needed to be done.

It does not matter now does it, Karzi was eventually elected to his current postion not once but twice...and just because you may disagree with is government does not make it illigimate does it....

Your comment about US soldiers is BS, your painting them all with the same brush, US forces make up the majority of the forces in Afghanistan and have more improvement projects than any other nation.....all the coalition forces operated on almost the same ROE's and it was not shoot first ask questions later.....

Your right not every Afghanis seen the war the same way, but the clear majority did not want to have anything to do with the Taliban. remember over 80% of all civilian deaths are done by the Taliban...most Afghans wanted the taliban gone...in fact very little of the civilian population never even got involved in the early stages of the war....

The country has never been completely whole as you suggest, it as always been fractured by tribes, and religion. and will be for many years to come it is in their culture...

Atleast your trying but reading a couple of books is just scratching the surface, one thing about the media will in Afghan was they very rarely left the wire....every night the gen would feed them the info that was cleared for public consumption, even when being spoon fed info each paper would have different stories....some journalist went out with the troops but it was a rare event. it was even rarer for a jounalist to stya outside the wire without NATO protection, to get the other half of the story....So beware of those author's claiming to have the true story....no everything you read is acurate....

The media liked to paint NATO as the bad guy, but facts are facts, 80 % of all the civilain deaths were done by the Terrorists....yes some of those that died were inocent civilians , but we are not talking about a trip to the mall here are we....we are talking about modern warfare and people die, and like in all warfare most of those are going to be civilians. Tragic yes it is, but unavoidable ...

[Army Guy]

What about the rule to officially declare war on another nation? By that alone both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were 100% illegal on the international law scale because no declaration of war was put forth.

If there was an official declaration of war, then this UK soldier in the UK would have been more than a legitimate target.

Violation of another nation's sovereign airspace. No official declaration of war against Pakistan or Yemen. Pakistan has made it quite clear they oppose the drone strikes. So in that case Pakistan has the legitimate right to declare war on the USA. Knowing that the USA would pound them into the ground in a full out war, Pakistan would hesitate to do this. And the USA knows that, so the drone strikes continue.

We've been over this and the rule of law in Afghanistan is pretty much the same as under the Taliban, however with some minor improvements.

You mean the legitimate government recognized after the illegal ousting of the Taliban? I don't recall the Taliban asking for help from the USA. Kind of convenient to have a new government installed and have them claim that they are the ones who are authorizing the foreign forces to stay.

The US made it very clear what would happen if Bin Ladin and his merry group was not handed over....they spelled it that they would use military force is nessicary....can't spell it out any clearer....it was the taliban who returned and said we will protect them with force...sounds like a party to me....And yet the UN agreed to allow US lead coalition forces to use military force....wonder how many lawyers are on all sides to make this go through , How would the UN even agree to the invasion if it was not legal....why would cretian agree to send Canadian forces over if it was not legal....

As for Iraq the UN had sanctions again'st it, Iraq had broken those agreements, the US used force to enforce them....illigal wounder how many lawyers are still going over this....why has nothing been done to date.....

Was this British soldier in uniform, No he was not, once out of uniform he is just a British citizen no more, .....like any other citizen...war or not war declared....it was a terrorist attck , done to make a policitical piont.... Off duty service personal do not have the right to take a life other than while on duty in a operations zone...they can not just walk around Britian and kill muslims when they want...it is the law...

Ya pakistan has the right, but it is them who are protecting these terrorist to start with....And it was Pakistan that signed the anti terror agreement to do anything possiable to not support terrorist.....and to do anything possiable to bring them to justice....hows that working out .....bin ladin had a nice stay did he not.....And the drone strikes go on....

[Army Guy]

Well there you go, its the same thing.

Stealth is for Radar, which the Taliban had what exactly.....and yet to the naked eye what do you see , a big ass honken jet come screaming down on you.....

[GostHacked]

The US made it very clear what would happen if Bin Ladin and his merry group was not handed over....they spelled it that they would use military force is nessicary....can't spell it out any clearer....it was the taliban who returned and said we will protect them with force...sounds like a party to me....And yet the UN agreed to allow US lead coalition forces to use military force....wonder how many lawyers are on all sides to make this go through , How would the UN even agree to the invasion if it was not legal....why would cretian agree to send Canadian forces over if it was not legal....

There was no formal of official declaration of war against Afghanistan OR Iraq by the USA Congress or senate. They were 'military operations'. Therefore completely illegal even by US law.

Our government does many things that are illegal,

As for Iraq the UN had sanctions again'st it, Iraq had broken those agreements, the US used force to enforce them....illigal wounder how many lawyers are still going over this....why has nothing been done to date.....

This was a matter of policy in the USA, but still no official declaration of war from the USA on Iraq.

Was this British soldier in uniform, No he was not, once out of uniform he is just a British citizen no more, .....like any other citizen...war or not war declared....it was a terrorist attck , done to make a policitical piont.... Off duty service personal do not have the right to take a life other than while on duty in a operations zone...they can not just walk around Britian and kill muslims when they want...it is the law...

Wars are all about politics.

Here is how I see it.

Britain has no declaration of war on another country. So when troops are sent to that country it is the 'battlezone'. But since there was no declaration, Britain is not part of the battlezone. Troops are in another country illegally due to no official declaration of war by Britain. So attacking them there is ok but when it comes back to the UK people are crying. Don't get me wrong, I don't like death and prefer it not to happen, and his widow sure is in a bad spot now because of it. But just because you take off that uniform while still being employed by the military, then you are a legitimate target.

But none of the actions on either side are legitimate in my view.

The drone operators sitting in a bunker in the USA, are they a legitimate target since they are 'on' the battlefield using a remote drone? I would say yes indeed. The battle fields is where ever you are operating from in my view, otherwise, we have the bravery of being out of range.

Ya pakistan has the right, but it is them who are protecting these terrorist to start with....And it was Pakistan that signed the anti terror agreement to do anything possiable to not support terrorist.....and to do anything possiable to bring them to justice....hows that working out .....bin ladin had a nice stay did he not.....And the drone strikes go on....

Muhajedeen.

[Army Guy]

Wars are all about politics.

Here is how I see it.

Britain has no declaration of war on another country. So when troops are sent to that country it is the 'battlezone'. But since there was no declaration, Britain is not part of the battlezone. Troops are in another country illegally due to no official declaration of war by Britain. So attacking them there is ok but when it comes back to the UK people are crying. Don't get me wrong, I don't like death and prefer it not to happen, and his widow sure is in a bad spot now because of it. But just because you take off that uniform while still being employed by the military, then you are a legitimate target.

But none of the actions on either side are legitimate in my view.

The drone operators sitting in a bunker in the USA, are they a legitimate target since they are 'on' the battlefield using a remote drone? I would say yes indeed. The battle fields is where ever you are operating from in my view, otherwise, we have the bravery of being out of range.

Muhajedeen.

According to all the laws that is what happens when you return back from any conflict, soldiers off duty are not targets . If this was the case nations would have armed soldiers in and out of unifrom, so they could protect themselfs...there would ROE's for engaging those declared enemies of the state....and there are none. they are just regular citizens .Does it make for better headlines sure it does....but when was the last time you heard of a soldier out of uniform hacking to death a muslim citizen.....you don't it would be murder, or a terrorist attack....both are illigal....

As for the drone attacks you might have a piont, however most drones are located in the operations area , flown, armed, and maintained there. alot of wpns are out of range for the taliban such as arty, missle attcks, even bombing aircraft.....

Muhajedeen. if that was true why sign the agreement, they know who the US considers terrorists.....until they do something to deter terrorist from hanging out in there nations, then they can expect someone to go in and get them....

[eyeball]

Your failing to get one of your own pionts, the entire country is a battlefield, Targeting is extremily hard

Don't look now but it's the entire world, which makes a lot of targeting really easy.

[GostHacked]

According to all the laws that is what happens when you return back from any conflict, soldiers off duty are not targets .

Again, the convenience of no official declaration of war on another nation state. If there was a formal declaration, then that solider is a legitimate target in and out of the uniform in the theater and at home. Seems that 'war' can be declared as something else in order to get around the official declaration.

If this was the case nations would have armed soldiers in and out of unifrom,

In Iraq's case, it was just that. US military and private contractors (Blackwater aka XE, or whatever they call themselves now).

In Libya's case it was just that again, British SAS that were captured by the standing army. They were out of uniform, carrying several passports, weapons, explosives as they were on their way to make contact with the rebels.

I am sure we can look at history and see this time and time again. Anywhere intelligence services operate (meaning foreign lands) you have a 'war' going on, but these people don't wear uniforms but are part of the support in terms of intelligence for the military.

...so they could protect themselfs...there would ROE's for engaging those declared enemies of the state....and there are none. they are just regular citizens .Does it make for better headlines sure it does....but when was the last time you heard of a soldier out of uniform hacking to death a muslim citizen.....you don't it would be murder, or a terrorist attack....both are illigal....

I understand that it is terrorism and murder and both are illegal. But the solider is not just a citizen, he was active in the military up till his death, even if on leave at home.

As for the drone attacks you might have a piont, however most drones are located in the operations area , flown, armed, and maintained there. alot of wpns are out of range for the taliban such as arty, missle attcks, even bombing aircraft.....

Drones are being flown out of the USA for these areas. Some are also flown out of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kyrgyzstan.

B2 bombers are also flown out of Guam and the USA mainland. So where this hardware is being operated out of is also considered legitimate targets in my view.

Muhajedeen. if that was true why sign the agreement, they know who the US considers terrorists.....until they do something to deter terrorist from hanging out in there nations, then they can expect someone to go in and get them....

What I meant by Muhajedeen, is that the west supported terrorists fighting Russian occupation. Then the same terrorists, sorry 'freedom fighters' the west supported turned against the west. IN a sense creating their own problem. One of the reasons you see some hesitation from the west to support the Free Syrian Army aka the rebels. They know that it will come back to bit them in the ass, always had before.

Edited May 31, 2013 by GostHacked

[Army Guy]

Again, the convenience of no official declaration of war on another nation state. If there was a formal declaration, then that solider is a legitimate target in and out of the uniform in the theater and at home. Seems that 'war' can be declared as something else in order to get around the official declaration.

In Iraq's case, it was just that. US military and private contractors (Blackwater aka XE, or whatever they call themselves now).

In Libya's case it was just that again, British SAS that were captured by the standing army. They were out of uniform, carrying several passports, weapons, explosives as they were on their way to make contact with the rebels.

I am sure we can look at history and see this time and time again. Anywhere intelligence services operate (meaning foreign lands) you have a 'war' going on, but these people don't wear uniforms but are part of the support in terms of intelligence for the military.

I understand that it is terrorism and murder and both are illegal. But the solider is not just a citizen, he was active in the military up till his death, even if on leave at home.

Drones are being flown out of the USA for these areas. Some are also flown out of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kyrgyzstan.

B2 bombers are also flown out of Guam and the USA mainland. So where this hardware is being operated out of is also considered legitimate targets in my view.

What I meant by Muhajedeen, is that the west supported terrorists fighting Russian occupation. Then the same terrorists, sorry 'freedom fighters' the west supported turned against the west. IN a sense creating their own problem. One of the reasons you see some hesitation from the west to support the Free Syrian Army aka the rebels. They know that it will come back to bit them in the ass, always had before.

Genva , inter national laws are very clear, The reason a soldier becomes a legal target in a war zone is he clearly wears a uniform/ arm band , he carries a wpn openily fights under those laws and rules governing war.....etc etc..... anyone that fits this discription can be legally engaged with lethal force....go home take the uniform off, and you become a regular citizen , they do not carry a wpn openily, your not a legal target, killing anyone in this discription is murder, period....

The genva convention also has a section for civilians working for the military in a war zone...unarmed civilian workers are not legal targets, if unarmed, they can be captured and become POW's but that is all. Civilians that are armed may be engaged at will, also subjected to the rules of war etc.....

Military pers in civilians to carry out intel or spec ops etc that have no paper work or id on them can be treated as spy's and can be shoot , once a trail confirms all of this....

[g_bambino]

Yes, because that's what all Muslims do.

Let's be real here.

Indeed, let's be real. So, don't imply Army Guy said what he didn't.

[GostHacked]

Genva , inter national laws are very clear, The reason a soldier becomes a legal target in a war zone is he clearly wears a uniform/ arm band , he carries a wpn openily fights under those laws and rules governing war.....etc etc..... anyone that fits this discription can be legally engaged with lethal force....go home take the uniform off, and you become a regular citizen , they do not carry a wpn openily, your not a legal target, killing anyone in this discription is murder, period....

And all that can be circumnavigated by how a 'war' is declared. The war zone is also as eyeball stated, the whole planet now. Since it seems a nation's sovereignty does not exist anymore, war can be waged anywhere and no declaration needs to happen.

Since no official declaration of war, I cannot see how Geneva conventions can possibly be applied.

The genva convention also has a section for civilians working for the military in a war zone...unarmed civilian workers are not legal targets, if unarmed, they can be captured and become POW's but that is all. Civilians that are armed may be engaged at will, also subjected to the rules of war etc.....

Blackwater personnel would be in my view a legitimate target. They are armed and have military style gear. From the Iraqi view, all are legitimate targets, your Geneva conventions be damned.

Military pers in civilians to carry out intel or spec ops etc that have no paper work or id on them can be treated as spy's and can be shoot , once a trail confirms all of this....

Not all of them wear a uniform. That was the point I was getting at. All seem to be legitimate targets in the end.

[Army Guy]

That completely ignores the reality of asymettrical warfare, geurillas are never going to line up in a field and get mowed down with big signs saying shoot me!

Following that rule then NATO must not be allowed to use STEALTH technology. It goes both ways.

So i guess it is all right to hide behind women and children , and to expect not to be engage because they know of our fear of shooting inocent civilians. hey as a soldier i can take the planting of IED's , bad guys shooting from schools, hospitals, crowded out door markets....risking the very lifes they say they are fighting for ....BS ....what i can't take is our own citizens feeling sorry for these pricks....

As home grown terrorist become more of a problem then we should be looking at our imigration laws and stripping these guys citizenship.....want to fight for the taliban, then here is your plane ticket, starting with the Khadrs ....

[GostHacked]

So i guess it is all right to hide behind women and children , and to expect not to be engage because they know of our fear of shooting inocent civilians.

Fear of shooting innocent civilians? Drone strikes anyone?

[G Huxley]

Stealth is for Radar, which the Taliban had what exactly.....and yet to the naked eye what do you see , a big ass honken jet come screaming down on you.....

No you don't they fly at an altitude and location where they won't be seen and they aren't marked as military targets. The victims of the attack will never see them.

Edited May 31, 2013 by G Huxley