Fighting Un-Conventional Wars

M.Dancer · November 6, 2006

Do you really not understand the difference between private purchise of land and its nationality, or deliberately trying to confuse by constantly pulling in the Jewish card?

Yes and apparently you do. So a jew who legally owns land in the west bank and lives there, as far as you are concerned is a human shield.....

myata · November 6, 2006

Legally, really? ( I have commented on the legality of such transactions awhile ago and you might have forgotten to reply).

bradco · November 7, 2006

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

-Im actually arguing against changing our culture. Im arguing that we need to follow the rules that have been dictated by OUR culture. You seem to, on the other hand, argue that we should betray our own rules and culture and fight "dirty" like the terrorists since they won't follow the rules. Its the rules, and by extension our culture that made those rules, that we are fighting for.

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

-Before arguing we shouldnt follow it maybe you should do some research on it then. International Humanitarian Law is the collection of treaties and customary law that binds the civilized states in how they conduct wars.

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

-I said nothing against "physcal involvement". However, "physical" involvement can varry in how its conducted. Now Im not saying there wont be collateral damage because there is in any war. However, the way the U.S. has fought the war in Iraq is illegal and immoral by any civilized standards. Unfortunatly the main stream media, especially in America, does not feel the need to report on it. I single out America because it is their campaigns and actions in Iraq that have been more questionable than their British counterparts.

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

Mostly with the current administration. The US does have a long history though of questionable foreign policy. That seems to be a basic characteristic of most superpowers throughout history though I guess.

"I tried doing the multiple boxed thing...but I can't make it work."

haha neither can I. I spaced my quotes a little more if that helps.

"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!"

The big difference now I guess is that the enemy is not as strong a threat militarily. The big problem was that it took that war where the rules were not followed to prove the real value of the rules. We need to follow the rules and set an example as the civilized nations. As I said even the Department of Defense in the US said Iraqi violations of the rules provide no advantage. I just fail to see how following international humanitarian law handicaps us in our fight against terrorism. Can you explain how?...I guess after you read up on it and exactly what the rules are.

betsy · November 7, 2006

"So what do we do? Change our culture to something they'd find acceptable....as a form of appeasement, of course?"
-Im actually arguing against changing our culture. Im arguing that we need to follow the rules that have been dictated by OUR culture. You seem to, on the other hand, argue that we should betray our own rules and culture and fight "dirty" like the terrorists since they won't follow the rules. Its the rules, and by extension our culture that made those rules, that we are fighting for.

Well I wouldn't call us fighting "dirty" like the terrorist! I wouldn't compare us with the terrorists!

My goodness!

There is big difference here. We are not deliberately using civilians as shields! And so far, we are doing what we can to avoid as many casualties as possible among civilians.

However, there will always be casualties of war, unfortunately...that's the hard reality...and nothing will change that no matter what.

So yes, we are trying to adhere to values dictated by our culture.

But I am not talking about that. I am talking about the rules of engagement established and dictated to by nations. You cannot just bind one group to the rules...and let the other group follow no rules! And then on top of that, protect the "rights" of the group that follow no rules at all!

betsy · November 7, 2006

" It may constitute a war crime or a crime against humanity to violate the Geneva Conventions.

There are four Geneva Conventions (signed in 1949) and two additional Protocols. The first two deal with the wounded and sick, the third deals with prisoners of war, and the fourth deals with civilians. The two protocols deal with the victims of international and non-international conflicts.

The Geneva Conventions make a distinction between civilians and combatants. There are different rules for different classes of people in conflicts:

SOLDIERS

-Combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians, wearing uniforms and carrying weapons openly

-POWs must be treated humanely – when questioned, POWs must only give their name, rank, birth date, and serial number

-POWs must be immediately evacuated away from a combat zone and not unnecessarily exposed to danger – they may not be used as human shields

-POWs may not be punished for the acts they committed during fighting unless the opposing side would punish its own soldiers for the same acts

CIVILIANS

-Civilians are not subject to attack – unless justified by military necessity, there is to be no destruction of property

-Individuals or groups must not be deported

-Civilians must not be used as hostages, must not be subject to outrages upon personal dignity, must not be tortured, raped, or enslaved, must not be subject to collective punishment and reprisals, and must not receive differential treatment based on race, religion, nationality, or political allegiance

-Warring parties must not use or develop biological or chemical weapons

JOURNALISTS

-War correspondents and journalists are recognized as civilians and are due all civilian protections

-Journalists must not be deliberately targeted, detained, or otherwise mistreated – journalists must differentiate themselves from combatants by not wearing uniforms or openly carrying firearms"

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/arti...onventions.html

betsy · November 7, 2006

The big difference now I guess is that the enemy is not as strong a threat militarily.

They may not have the fire-power...but I wouldn't casually dismiss them as a threat.

Why, they've got the whole world in a tizzy!

betsy · November 7, 2006

I just fail to see how following international humanitarian law handicaps us in our fight against terrorism. Can you explain how?...I guess after you read up on it and exactly what the rules are.

Because the said humanitarian laws are only for certain groups of people! You explain why there's hardly anything being done about the way Israel is treated....as compared to the nations that are fighting Israel.

Israel is easily slapped on the wrist for just about anything when it deals with these opponents...and yet, the UN practically tries to downplay the offenses of the others! Lebanon and Israel war was a perfect example!

That Harper even had to argue with these nations of the Francophonie...many of whom are members of the UN...just so to recognize casualties in Israel as victims too....speaks volume! To them, Isrealites are nothing!

If we should talk of values and REAL morals, well then....humanitarian law should be for all!

M.Dancer · November 7, 2006

Because the said humanitarian laws are only for certain groups of people!

If that was true, they would not be HUMANitarian laws.........

JerrySeinfeld · November 7, 2006

Today on tv, they showed a footage of a large group of Palestinian women in their traditional burqua apparently shielding and hiding gunmen from Israeli soldiers. The Israeli soldiers open fired....two women were killed.
Civilians do not have to be excluded from the fight....if they are participants in the war. That includes children as well. I think it's fair.

I cannot find the topic on Geneva Conventions....so let me say it here that I think, the Geneva Conventions Rules ought to be revised.

We don't need new rules. Article one of the geneva conventions already clearly states that using civilian shields is a war crime and that the deaths or injuries of those human shields is not blamed on the bombers, but rather those using the civilians as shields in the first place. In other words, Qana et. al. was a war crime: a palestinian one.

betsy · November 7, 2006

Today on tv, they showed a footage of a large group of Palestinian women in their traditional burqua apparently shielding and hiding gunmen from Israeli soldiers. The Israeli soldiers open fired....two women were killed.

Civilians do not have to be excluded from the fight....if they are participants in the war. That includes children as well. I think it's fair.

I cannot find the topic on Geneva Conventions....so let me say it here that I think, the Geneva Conventions Rules ought to be revised.

We don't need new rules. Article one of the geneva conventions already clearly states that using civilian shields is a war crime and that the deaths or injuries of those human shields is not blamed on the bombers, but rather those using the civilians as shields in the first place. In other words, Qana et. al. was a war crime: a palestinian one.

I think it should be revised in the sense that those who do not follow the Geneva Conventions rule should not be protected by the said rules. Or something similar to that.

If the terrorists want to fight dirty...then we should also have the option, if we so choose...to fight "dirty" too. That we don't get hauled in front of the tribunal to answer to accusations of "war crimes."

JerrySeinfeld · November 7, 2006

Today on tv, they showed a footage of a large group of Palestinian women in their traditional burqua apparently shielding and hiding gunmen from Israeli soldiers. The Israeli soldiers open fired....two women were killed.

Civilians do not have to be excluded from the fight....if they are participants in the war. That includes children as well. I think it's fair.

I cannot find the topic on Geneva Conventions....so let me say it here that I think, the Geneva Conventions Rules ought to be revised.

We don't need new rules. Article one of the geneva conventions already clearly states that using civilian shields is a war crime and that the deaths or injuries of those human shields is not blamed on the bombers, but rather those using the civilians as shields in the first place. In other words, Qana et. al. was a war crime: a palestinian one.

I think it should be revised in the sense that those who do not follow the Geneva Conventions rule should not be protected by the said rules. Or something similar to that.

If the terrorists want to fight dirty...then we should also have the option, if we so choose...to fight "dirty" too. That we don't get hauled in front of the tribunal to answer to accusations of "war crimes."

No - that wouldn't be "fair". :blink:

C'mon - this is news to you? We have to play by high standards while thug regimes, dictators and despots get all the breaks and leniency?

um - it's called the UN

M.Dancer · November 7, 2006

um - it's called the UN

Ahh...they're called western civilised values...the ones we are fighting to defend. Kind of pointless trying to defend our values if we throw them away....migt as well strap on a bomb vest and say to heck with it.....

JerrySeinfeld · November 7, 2006

um - it's called the UN

Ahh...they're called western civilised values...the ones we are fighting to defend. Kind of pointless trying to defend our values if we throw them away....migt as well strap on a bomb vest and say to heck with it.....

The UN doesn't represent western civilized values my friend.

Do you think welcoming a holocaust-denier into your organization to say a few words to the general assembly represents "western civilized values"?

Black Dog · November 7, 2006

The UN doesn't represent western civilized values my friend.
Do you think welcoming a holocaust-denier into your organization to say a few words to the general assembly represents "western civilized values"?

The Geneva Conventions governing conduct in war time have nothing to do with the UN. Dancer's right: the instant we start fighting like "the terrorists" we surrender whatever claims of moral superiority we have left.

JerrySeinfeld · November 7, 2006

The UN doesn't represent western civilized values my friend.
Do you think welcoming a holocaust-denier into your organization to say a few words to the general assembly represents "western civilized values"?

The Geneva Conventions governing conduct in war time have nothing to do with the UN. Dancer's right: the instant we start fighting like "the terrorists" we surrender whatever claims of moral superiority we have left.

"The terrorists" don't even exist under geneva conventions. Since they aren't legally "enemy combatants" that excludes them from the right to claim status under the conventions.

bradco · November 7, 2006

"I think it should be revised in the sense that those who do not follow the Geneva Conventions rule should not be protected by the said rules. Or something similar to that."

Have no fear they already have such rules. Beligerent reprisals are allowed. If someone breaks humanitarian law you are allowed to do so in return. Only caveats are: the reprisal must be proportional to that of the original violation and the intentional targeting of civilians is still not allowed. For example, if one group used chemical weapons on another it is, in my understanding, not strictly forbidden to use chemical weapons in retaliation. Additionally, it is also my understanding that those who violate the rules governing how one can fight forfeit some of the protections offered under the Geneva Conventions.

""The terrorists" don't even exist under geneva conventions. Since they aren't legally "enemy combatants" that excludes them from the right to claim status under the conventions."

The big reason they dont is because terrorism was not a real issue/priority at the time. Congress and the Bush adminstration were quick to point this out and we will see how the law transforms in that respect. As violators of international humanitarian law I dont think too many people are going to lose sleep over terrorists not retaining the same rights. However, the citizens caught up in our battle with terrorists do have rights and those must be respected when we battle terrorists.

"The UN doesn't represent western civilized values my friend. Do you think welcoming a holocaust-denier into your organization to say a few words to the general assembly represents "western civilized values"?"

But does he have any power in the UN? Letting people in universally and to speak is a western value in itself. Make no mistake though the real power is still vested with the west. Read the UN Charter and explain how it does not represent western values? Explain how anything the UN has authorized isnt for western values.

For those who think that the west is truly moral in the way we fight Id encourage them to actually find out about the way the Iraq war has been conducted. Try to put yourself in the shoes of the people who have to live through the war in their own neighbourhood and ask yourself whether all our actions are morally justifiable. And keep in mind that neither the people of Iraq or even their former brutal leader have attacked the west.

Argus · November 8, 2006

um - it's called the UN

Ahh...they're called western civilised values...the ones we are fighting to defend. Kind of pointless trying to defend our values if we throw them away....migt as well strap on a bomb vest and say to heck with it.....

You have a point, but at the same time, I believe there is a distinct, moral difference between, say, murdering a bomb-maker, and murdering a schoolgirl.

Argus · November 8, 2006

The UN doesn't represent western civilized values my friend.
Do you think welcoming a holocaust-denier into your organization to say a few words to the general assembly represents "western civilized values"?

The Geneva Conventions governing conduct in war time have nothing to do with the UN. Dancer's right: the instant we start fighting like "the terrorists" we surrender whatever claims of moral superiority we have left.

Or not.

Would you suggest the British and Americans were "as bad" as the Germans during WW2 because both sides bombed each other's cities?

If the "terrorist side" beheads every western captive they catch, be it man or woman, aid worker or soldier, are the Americans "as bad" because they try to humiliate their prisoners in order to get information?

Black Dog · November 8, 2006

Would you suggest the British and Americans were "as bad" as the Germans during WW2 because both sides bombed each other's cities?

Both are war crimes. Both morally repugnant. That the Nazis were a greater evil in total doesn't make Allied actions less immoral.

If the "terrorist side" beheads every western captive they catch, be it man or woman, aid worker or soldier, are the Americans "as bad" because they try to humiliate their prisoners in order to get information?

Interesting choice of words. I have a feeling you know exactly what allowing torture would make us, which is why you avoid saying it.

bradco · November 8, 2006

um - it's called the UN

Ahh...they're called western civilised values...the ones we are fighting to defend. Kind of pointless trying to defend our values if we throw them away....migt as well strap on a bomb vest and say to heck with it.....

You have a point, but at the same time, I believe there is a distinct, moral difference between, say, murdering a bomb-maker, and murdering a schoolgirl.

You have captured the issue quite well I think. Murdering bomb-maker good. Murdering schoolgirl bad. International law is very clear that killing the bomb-maker is allowed, the schoolgirl not. But when to kill the bomb-maker we must kill the schoolgirl as well we enter a gray zone of both legal and moral issues. Is one schoolgirl worth sacrificing to kill one bomb-maker? Does it depend on who the bomb-maker is? The crimes he has committed or intelligence information shows he will commit? Can we trust intelligence information? A legitimate question after Iraq Id say. Is there a certain number of schoolgirl deaths that pushes the legality and the morality of the attack over some sort of tipping point? The main law followed by most regimes is that the collateral damage of an attack may not exceed the military necessity of the attack. But who decides what the military necessity is? Do we follow Donald Rumsfeld who believes it is legitmate to bring down an entire apartment building to kill one man?

betsy · November 8, 2006

For those who think that the west is truly moral in the way we fight Id encourage them to actually find out about the way the Iraq war has been conducted.

I understand that attacking Iraq became "immoral" only because the UN did not sanction it? Had the UN gave the go-ahead signal....it would've been a moral war?

betsy · November 8, 2006

But when to kill the bomb-maker we must kill the schoolgirl as well we enter a gray zone of both legal and moral issues.

Issues that the enemies know they can...and had used to their advantage.

Killing the bomb-maker is just a part of it. Killing those who pay the bomb-makers to make bombs...or those who recruit suicide bombers to carry out attacks is the big chunk of it. The recruiters are the roots that should be pulled out.

Why would you give your enemy an advantage over you?

If for example Israel is being bombed by Iran...should Israel consider the safety of the majority of Iranians in bombing back? Shouldn't they just unleash a rain of bombs after all they're being attacked?

lost&outofcontrol · November 8, 2006

1- Palestinians view Israel as a foreign invader(1).

2- Palestinians do not have a true army in the western sense of the word and must rely on guerrilla tactics.

3- If Canada was invaded by an occupation force, would we roll over and take it or use any means necessary to regain sovereignty over our(2) land?

Footnote(I wish we could add these to postings):

1 While you may dispute this issue, it does not invalidate the remain points I'm making.

2 Technically it isn't our land, we just took it.

Argus · November 8, 2006

1- Palestinians view Israel as a foreign invader(1).
2- Palestinians do not have a true army in the western sense of the word and must rely on guerrilla tactics.

3- If Canada was invaded by an occupation force, would we roll over and take it or use any means necessary to regain sovereignty over our(2) land?

1 - The Palestinians are wrong.

2 - Guerrila tactics involve ambushing foreign soldiers, and destroying military, and sometimes tactical assets. They do not involve blowing up pizza parlors full of teenagers, buses filled with commuters, or women shopping for fresh veggies in the local market. People bitch about the collatoral damage which sometimes accompanies Israeli strikes on terrorists, but their attacks are ALWAYS directed AT the terrorists. Most of the attacks by Palestinians are aimed at civilians. That marks them as terrorists, not guerrilas.

3 - The best way to defeat an occupation force is to blow up the occupation force, not children in a restaurant.

Army Guy · November 8, 2006

Genva convention was not written or concieved to give one side an advantage over another. It was written for the most part to govern the conduct of warfare and reduce the needless deaths of inocent people. It is very black and white, their are no grey areas in it. Mind you, to fully understand it , it needs to be explained by a lawyer that specializes in this area. but it does cover every subject including the Terrorist clauses.

breaking "any" of the conventions is punishable by a war crimes tribulal, that being said rarely do any of the victors get punished...For example did any of the allied leaders get punished for the mass fire bombings again'st dresden etc etc...My piont here is this the conventions are not fairly applied across the board.

And i'd like to add this, a nation at war has to decide what actions it can live with in order to win...I say win because one does not go to war to lose...OK maybe france Joking, I say this because when it's all over we are the ones that have to live with our actions, we can re write history, we can change history, but we can not undo our actions....

As for the example of the women and the Isrealis soldier , this is not a good example at all and many arguements could made for both sides Again'st or for the conventions...it is clear that the soldier here took the path he believed was right...although easy for all of us to sit here and pick those actions apart, he did not have the same time nor facts we do...he had but split seconds before he acted...