Fighting Un-Conventional Wars

[Rue]

I gather you'll agree then that the attacks on Israeli civilian settlers would be also fully justified by the same token? They really nothing more than willing human shields whom their country encouraged and sponsored to settle on the occupied land to establish and extend their claim to it.

Your analogy is defective. Your analogy would be correct or accurate, if those settlers engage in terrorist acts. The act of physically being on land in itself is not justification for being killed. Going the next step and shooting at Palestinians or hiding settlers who had just killed Palestinians would be.

Your analogy is defective because you are suggesting occupying land justifies killing someone. No, occupying land causes a dispute that must be settled through reason and dialogue and non violence.

The situation above was a specific example of people who had engaged in violence then retreating to a mosque, and then using women as shields. Had they NOT engaged in violence and terror, the IDF would never have pursued them.

These women chose on their own voilition to become tools to be used.

Now with these settlers, they choose to put themselves in harms way yes, and no I do not condone what they do, and understand why Palestinians would throw rocks at them, spit at them, etc., but killing no. It is wrong when either side does it.

When the IDF chases terrorists and kills them, it is a survival response but it will not resolve the larger issue just as terrorism in the first place won't resolve it. Only peaceful dialogue from both sides can.

If women choose to use themselves as shields to protect terrorists being chased in hot pursuit, yes they will risk being shot and killed.

If settlers engage in shooting at Palestinians they risk dying not just by Palestinians but by the IDF who have shot and killed settlers in heated moments.

The settlers in the West Bank are definitely a provocative symbol then invites trouble.

These women who now openly choose to support Hamas in acts of terrorism are dooming their society to

self-destruction. Nature did not intend women who carry life to place that life in harm's way.

Eventually what will happen is Israel will start using gas to paralyze everyone to avoid killing the women but instead imobiliizing them.

To me it is the utmost cowardice to hide behind women and wear their clothes to escape. If you want to engage in war but this is the way you have to do it, it doesn't say much for how you value life.

I would have hoped Palestinian women sick of seeing their children die, would be renouncing terrorism not encouraging it.

Anyone who thinks this is heroic is mistaken. There is nothing heroic using women as cannon fodder.

Its pure cowardice.

[betsy]

"The terrorists of today do not follow the Geneva Conventions!"

Thats kind of my point. The terrorists want us to submit to their world where it is acceptable to target and kill civilians. By submiting to their philosophy we are forfeiting the war to them. At least if this is truly a war of "ways of life". We need to follow our civilized rules because its those very rules that we are fighting for!!!!

I don't see how we are forfeiting the war to them by taking them on. Yes, even if this is about "ways of life."

We'll be caring about what others may think is acceptable and inacceptable....and the enemies are using that very thing against us. We think we're so civilized...and they think we're so stupid!

Because in the end, the ways of all life, lead to one simple rule: survival!

[betsy]

I saw the footage again. More detailed, this time.

Apparently those women heard the gunmen on the radio asking for help. So these women rushed to help and shield them...and they even provided extra burquas SO THE GUNMEN CAN DISGUISE THEMSELVES AS WOMEN.

See the implication in this? What this entails?

DO NOT ASSUME EVERYONE WEARING BURQUAS ARE WOMEN!

[bradco]

I saw the footage again. More detailed, this time.

Apparently those women heard the gunmen on the radio asking for help. So these women rushed to help and shield them...and they even provided extra burquas SO THE GUNMEN CAN DISGUISE THEMSELVES AS WOMEN.

See the implication in this? What this entails?

DO NOT ASSUME EVERYONE WEARING BURQUAS ARE WOMEN!

But should we assume every person wearing a burqua is a fighter?

[bradco]

"I don't see how we are forfeiting the war to them by taking them on."

Thats not what I said. I said we forfeit the war when we engage in wars and disobey our own values, morals, our way of life....the very way of life we are supposedly battling for. We can still take them on and win by following the rules set out in international humanitarian rule.

"Because in the end, the ways of all life, lead to one simple rule: survival!"

But can you actually destroy terrorism by engaging in terrorism? To defeat terrorism is a long term battle where you need to prove your way of life and your values are superior. How can you do this if you resort to terrorist values right away? The long term "survival" of our way of life depends on fighting in a way we deem to be moral. Dont mistake this for me saying we shouldnt fight. We need to fight but following the current rules and allowing for a bit of morality proves that are values are superior. The terrorists can call us stupid but someday I think the people will see our actions and see the terrorists actions and support for the terrorist cause will weaken. When we dont follow our rules we only breed more terrorism.

[betsy]

I saw the footage again. More detailed, this time.

Apparently those women heard the gunmen on the radio asking for help. So these women rushed to help and shield them...and they even provided extra burquas SO THE GUNMEN CAN DISGUISE THEMSELVES AS WOMEN.

See the implication in this? What this entails?

DO NOT ASSUME EVERYONE WEARING BURQUAS ARE WOMEN!

But should we assume every person wearing a burqua is a fighter?

IF they act like those women did, YES! Treat them all like enemies!

Anyone providing help to the enemy IS an enemy!

Anyone providing morale support to the enemy IS an enemy!

Whether he or she is wearing pants or dressed in a burqua!

In times of conflict or engagement....the innocent civilians run the other way....far, far away!

[betsy]

Thats not what I said. I said we forfeit the war when we engage in wars and disobey our own values, morals, our way of life....the very way of life we are supposedly battling for.

It all boils down to the law of survival, isn't it?

Survival of your comrades.

Survival of your platoon.

Survival of your battalion.

Survival of your own people.

Survival of your nation.

Survival of your way of life!

The great nations of today had been at war way before somebody came up with the Geneva Conventions.

Some of them, had behaved with reasonable decency in the face of combat, despite the lack of universal laws on how to engage. There was an unwritten code of honor that the civilized nations followed in the old days.

But times had changed. The enemy had changed. The strategies of combat had changed.

You do not bind yourself with restrictive rules that render you helpless. That's just common sense.

You fight to win! Plain and simple.

I now wonder why some nations refuse to sign the Protocol 1. What's in it?

[betsy]

But can you actually destroy terrorism by engaging in terrorism? To defeat terrorism is a long term battle where you need to prove your way of life and your values are superior. How can you do this if you resort to terrorist values right away?

Why, have we fought terrorism before?

You don't know any more than I do...I think. So can you explain why you're so sure that's the best way to go?

Besides, you seem to be confused.... equating fighting back with acts of terrorism?

So now, when you hit back....that's now defined as terrorism?"

[betsy]

The long term "survival" of our way of life depends on fighting in a way we deem to be moral.

The great nations of the old days like England and USA had done perfectly well during the old wars...moral-wise, don't you think so?

And they've survived. Perfectly well too.

[betsy]

Dont mistake this for me saying we shouldnt fight. We need to fight but following the current rules and allowing for a bit of morality proves that are values are superior.

So you do not approve of the tactics the Israeli soldiers did regarding those women?

Keep in mind that those women rushed to the mosque after hearing the plea for help from the gunmen.

They were not just innocent bystanders caught in the middle...and forcefully used as shields against their will.

What would've been the best way for them to do...if they wanted to get those gunmen. Please explain how they should've done it instead.

[betsy]

The terrorists can call us stupid but someday I think the people will see our actions and see the terrorists actions and support for the terrorist cause will weaken.

Depends on the outcome of the war...long-term outcome I suppose.

If our grandchildren end up being under an oppressive regime as the outcome....THEY WILL be the ones calling us stupid! And cursing us to boot.

[betsy]

....I think the people will see our actions and see the terrorists actions and support for the terrorist cause will weaken.

What makes you so sure?

People under oppressive regimes can become so frustrated from waiting and enduring...wondering why powerful nations don't just take on the enemy by force and free them from oppression!

They'll end up losing hope waiting for all our quibbling over what is acceptable and inacceptable.

Their own morale goes down the chute...and of course they'll think..."Unbelievable. What a confused bunch. They'll most probably leave me swinging in the wind. I'm better off with my oppressors!"

Of course, those who are quick to put the blame on nations that try to help....you question their allegiance.

And their possible motives. Are they for real? Or playing the game of politics to weaken and undermine the good guys?

Those that do want desperately to be free understands that at times, it takes doing ugly to fight what is ugly.

War is never pretty.

[betsy]

When we dont follow our rules we only breed more terrorism.

I agree .

Because when we follow all the imposed outdated and impractical rules, we'll lose.

Then there's no more need for the terrorists to terrorize. So no more need to recruit and breed terrorists.

[betsy]

someday I think the people will see our actions and see the terrorists actions and support for the terrorist cause will weaken. When we dont follow our rules we only breed more terrorism.

What makes you think terrorism will wane...if we don't make it wane?

More likely there will be more terrorists....for the perceived "winning team" will most likely attract more support! The team who displays a confused attitude and applies mind-boggling philosophies in handling war does not earn respect!

Liberal-thinkers and lefties may want to imagine they do....and give their backs a collective pat for being so "morally superior"....but the bottom line is: did you win or not?

You think the terrorrists will just say..."oh I'm tired of this...I'll stop now."

Terrorists are not playing a silly game...they are dead serious!

[bradco]

First of all, it would be much easier to respond to your post and much easier to read if its all made in a single post.

"There was an unwritten code of honor that the civilized nations followed in the old days."

The laws and norms proved themselves pretty much useless in world war II and I hope that this new war on terror does not have the same result. I for one put value on all human life, especially innocent civilians. If anything we need enforcement measures to make the rules more than just lip service to ideals.

Either way, nations have been codifying international humanitarian law in written treaties for a lot longer than you realize I think. It wasnt an "unwritten" code. There are examples dating back as far as 1868 that I know of.

-1868: St. Petersburg Declaration

-1878: Project of an International Declaration Concerning the Laws and Customs of War

-1899: annex to the above declaration

-1899 through 1907: Hague conventions prohibiting the use of numerous weapons

The horrors of the second world war started a new push towards a more civilized way of warring.

"So can you explain why you're so sure that's the best way to go?"

Can you explain why your way is better? Ill mention mine later in this post.

"Besides, you seem to be confused.... equating fighting back with acts of terrorism?

So now, when you hit back....that's now defined as terrorism?"

No, apparently you are confused. I never said that. Hitting back while following the current international humanitarian laws is not equated to terrorism. The well documented instances in Iraq where the US has been involved in legally and morally questionable actions have stepped into a world where they are embracing values shared by the terrorists.

"The great nations of the old days like England and USA had done perfectly well during the old wars...moral-wise, don't you think so?"

Im sorry, did they skip over World War II in your history class?

Did you skip over all the US shenanigans in Latin America? Im sure Latin America wouldnt share your same love for the morallity of former US policy makers. Those instances mostly regard jus ad bello rules though so probably not all that relevant to the current discussion.

"So you do not approve of the tactics the Israeli soldiers did regarding those women?"

Again (the third time now), I say that their actions did not violate any current international humanitarian laws. Not even the ones that their government refuses to sign.

"They'll end up losing hope waiting for all our quibbling over what is acceptable and inacceptable."

Not everyone wants us to be "liberating" them. Not everyone is waiting for us to roll on in and save them, whether its whats best for them or not. And they are most definetly not waiting for us to roll on in like the US did in Iraq.

"Because when we follow all the imposed outdated and impractical rules, we'll lose."

I assume you mean the rules of international humanitarian law. I disagree. Following these rules really does not put us at any disadvantage in the war especially since we have an incredible technological, economic and miltary advantage. The US Department of Defense after the first Gulf War specifically stated so in saying that Iraqi violations of such laws afforded them no advantage. Furthermore, as I have said already in order to win this war it is going to take changing deeply entrenched feelings against us in the Middle East. We wont be able to do this by ignoring humantarian rules, norms and ideals.

"If our grandchildren end up being under an oppressive regime as the outcome....THEY WILL be the ones calling us stupid! And cursing us to boot."

Are you kidding? Its not like even the terrorists actually think they will win to the extent that they will actually take over our nations.

The most likely chance of our grandchildren being under oppressive regimes comes from us putting in our own oppressive regimes in response to vaguely defined threats to national security. Doing so would be violating our own values. Hey wait a second, that starts when we violate our own values in fighting with disrespect for our own rules.

"What makes you think terrorism will wane...if we don't make it wane?"

What makes you think that we can defeat terrorism by just indiscrimately blowing up everything in sight? I never argued not to fight terrorists. I argue for a balanced approach that is much different to the approach of the current US administration. The atrocities that the US commits in Iraq and the method they fight are only strengthing the terrorist resovle and breeding more terrorism. The way the Iraq war is being fought is making us less secure in the west. Afghanistan is a little bit different but more balance is needed as well.

"Terrorists are not playing a silly game...they are dead serious!"

Of course they are! Thats why I propose a solution to the problem that may in the long run help destroy the threat they pose. Anyone who thinks we can destroy completely any terrorist threats solely by indiscriminate bombing campaigns throughout the world does not have a firm grip on reality. This is a long term problem where groups of people have resentment towards our entire culture. Since we cant possibly wipe everyone of them off the face of the planet we need to start fighting them in a manner that wont encourage more resentment from others who dont hold such feelings yet.

"You do not bind yourself with restrictive rules that render you helpless"

Hyperbole. None of the current rules render us "helpless". The only ones helpless are the ones the west go to battle with.

"In times of conflict or engagement....the innocent civilians run the other way....far, far away!"

Something very easy for you to say because you have never lived through a war on your own soil. So any civlians who died in world war one and two have only themselves to blame? They should have just run away to the country side right? How exactly do you propose for millions of urban dwellers to just pack up and move out of their cities and find a way to survive in times of conflict. The laws are in place because people with half a brain no that civlians will inevitably find themselves caught in the crossfire, in positions where they cant just run the other way.

Sure in this one case they could have but I already said they werent "civilians" here. I told you that the Israeli actions were already within the law.

"I now wonder why some nations refuse to sign the Protocol 1. What's in it?"

Good stuff if you have a conscience and any morals. Im sure you can find it on the internet if you want.

full name is: Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August, 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) 8 June, 1977

[betsy]

First of all, it would be much easier to respond to your post and much easier to read if its all made in a single post.

Well I guess we differ in that regard...too.

I find reading your posts is hard on the eyes sorting what was a previous comment...and what is the reply. I find it look more cluttered.

Besides, I like to emphasize what particular segment or comment I am directly responding to. I tried doing the multiple boxed thing...but I can't make it work.

[betsy]

"There was an unwritten code of honor that the civilized nations followed in the old days."

The laws and norms proved themselves pretty much useless in world war II and I hope that this new war on terror does not have the same result.

Why do you think they're not as useless now? Or worse? The enemy does not follow the laws and norms.

It takes two to tango.

If your enemy is not obligated...nor does it have any inclination at all to follow the laws, in fact it laughs and scoffs at these said laws and uses it as a weapon to wield against you....then obviously, you're in a pickle!

[betsy]

Can you explain why your way is better? Ill mention mine later in this post.

Common sense. See answer above.

And your explanation?

[betsy]

"The great nations of the old days like England and USA had done perfectly well during the old wars...moral-wise, don't you think so?"

Im sorry, did they skip over World War II in your history class?

Did you skip over all the US shenanigans in Latin America? Im sure Latin America wouldnt share your same love for the morallity of former US policy makers. Those instances mostly regard jus ad bello rules though so probably not all that relevant to the current discussion.

History is not confined only to Latin America. FYI, history does not apply only to the last 100 years or so.

Anyway, feel free to re-educate me about Latin America. What happened?

So I see you've got a beef with the USA.

What about England?

And more recently...the Australia? Canada?

Don't you think they did pretty well? Where are they now? What kind of society do they enjoy?

What kind of immigrants flock to these shores, including that of the big bad ol USA...immigrants from which parts of the world?

Latin America?

Asia?

MiddleEast?

Africa?

You agree to that?

(to be continued...got to go.)

[betsy]

Not everyone wants us to be "liberating" them. Not everyone is waiting for us to roll on in and save them, whether its whats best for them or not. And they are most definetly not waiting for us to roll on in like the US did in Iraq.

So how do we know just how many wants us liberating them...and how many don't?

Referendum? That would be quite tricky to accomplish in a dictatorial or oppressive regime, don't you think?

So what kind of "saving" do you think they want...if they don't want our physical involvement?

Financial aid? "Just give me cash please?"

[betsy]

"Because when we follow all the imposed outdated and impractical rules, we'll lose."

I assume you mean the rules of international humanitarian law. I disagree. Following these rules really does not put us at any disadvantage in the war especially since we have an incredible technological, economic and miltary advantage. The US Department of Defense after the first Gulf War specifically stated so in saying that Iraqi violations of such laws afforded them no advantage. Furthermore, as I have said already in order to win this war it is going to take changing deeply entrenched feelings against us in the Middle East. We wont be able to do this by ignoring humantarian rules, norms and ideals.

Well I don't know what's in the international humanitarian law, so I can't say if that is what I mean.

[betsy]

Furthermore, as I have said already in order to win this war it is going to take changing deeply entrenched feelings against us in the Middle East.

Deeply entrenched negative feelings against us could've stemmed from a combination of various reasons. For the extremists followers of the Koran....our very way of life is one reason they've got this deeply entrenched feelings against us. That we are not believers of their prophet is another. That some western democracies support Israel and the Jews is another. Etc.,

In other words...we appease?

[betsy]

Are you kidding? Its not like even the terrorists actually think they will win to the extent that they will actually take over our nations.

Taking over nations does not always necessarily have to involve violence.

[betsy]

The most likely chance of our grandchildren being under oppressive regimes comes from us putting in our own oppressive regimes in response to vaguely defined threats to national security.

I wouldn't say "the MOST likely...." at this point. But it is a possibility. That's why we need also to keep check and balance!

You do not agree to almost anything put before you without listening to the experts and understanding how it can affect us too.

[betsy]

This is a long term problem where groups of people have resentment towards our entire culture.

So, you admit....it is our way of life.... that they resent.

So what do we do? Change our culture to something they'd find acceptable....as a form of appeasement, of course?

In the name of imagined "peace", we have to capitulate and sacrifice our way of life?