Canadians Against Suicide Bombing

[White Doors]

You can judge them anyway you want but it won't matter because they don't care, will be dead and therefore beyond your reach. Regardless of how you feel about suicide bombing this bill is a useless waste of time.

Don't get me wrong, I know they don't care and I could care less that they don't. I'm worried about our 'useful idiots' over here.

[Wilber]

Such is the burden of belonging to a civilized society. I liek to think our superior training, tactics & weapondry more than make up for these operational restrictions.

More to the point it is the burden of those who have to fight for a civilized society.

[White Doors]

Black Dog you need to take a big breath and read slowly. I'll type slower for you if that helps:

I said:

Suicide bombers disguise themselves as civilians which is why it is illegal not to mention cowardly

Then you say:

So the Geneva Convention does not, as you claim, prohbit suicide bombing per se

Now be a man and own up that you are SO VERY wrong on this issue.

Thanks

[Black Dog]

o I am not wrong. A suicide bomber is not dressed in a military uniform acting on behalf of a national governmnet. Therefore he/she is an illegal combatant and what they are doing is nothign more than murder regardless of who they attach be it civilian or military.

That is an illegal tactic.

Get it?

What about a suicide bomber who wears a uniform and attacks a military target (think Japan's kamikazes)? Would that be illegal under the Convention? Hmmm? The answer, of course, would be no. And why? Because suicide bombing isn't illegal under the G.C. Dressing up as a civilian for the purposes of conducting military operations and intentionally targeting civilians is prohibited. Suicide bombing, the tactic, is not.

Black Dog you need to take a big breath and read slowly. I'll type slower for you if that helps:

I said:

QUOTE

Suicide bombers disguise themselves as civilians which is why it is illegal not to mention cowardly

Which has nothing to do with suicide bombing itself. Disguising oneself as a civilian and opening up on a crowd of noncombatants with an AK47 would also be against the Conventions. By your logic, though, that means machine guns are against the Geneva Convention.

Then you say:

So the Geneva Convention does not, as you claim, prohbit suicide bombing per se

Now be a man and own up that you are SO VERY wrong on this issue.

Thanks

How about you "be a man" and show me where the term "suicide bombing" is included in the Geneva Conventions. Thanks.

In truth, Army guy should be more worried about black dogs opinions becoming mainstream in Canada. That is the only thing that can really defeat Canada in Afghanistan.

I fail to see how my view that you are talking out of your ass on this subject could have any bearing on events overseas.

[White Doors]

Such is the burden of belonging to a civilized society. I liek to think our superior training, tactics & weapondry more than make up for these operational restrictions.

More to the point it is the burden of those who have to fight for a civilized society.

Yes very true, but also for the country that is asking them to fight and win.

It would be much easier to carpet bomb the whole country and just start over. But then we would be the bad guys.

[White Doors]

What about a suicide bomber who wears a uniform and attacks a military target (think Japan's kamikazes)? Would that be illegal under the Convention? Hmmm? The answer, of course, would be no. And why? Because suicide bombing isn't illegal under the G.C. Dressing up as a civilian for the purposes of conducting military operations and intentionally targeting civilians is prohibited. Suicide bombing, the tactic, is not.

Which as you can see above - if you were interested in listening to others as opposed to only listening to yourself - is exactly what I stated.

Care to keep going or would you like to continue to make an ass of yourself?

The USA never complained to the League of nations about Kamikaze pilots. They just killed them.

Both perfectly legal.

[Black Dog]

What about a suicide bomber who wears a uniform and attacks a military target (think Japan's kamikazes)? Would that be illegal under the Convention? Hmmm? The answer, of course, would be no. And why? Because suicide bombing isn't illegal under the G.C. Dressing up as a civilian for the purposes of conducting military operations and intentionally targeting civilians is prohibited. Suicide bombing, the tactic, is not.

Which as you can see above - if you were interested in listening to others as opposed to only listening to yourself - is exactly what I stated.

Indeed? Was that when you (rather unequivocally) stated that:

According to the Geneva conventions a suicide attack even against a military target is illegal.

Which would suggest that suicide bombing under any circumstances is a proscribed activity under the G.C. (which it is not).

Or was it when you point blank referred to suicide bombing as an "illegal tactic"?

For those just joining us, I'll save you the trouble of reading through and summarize things to this point:

WD: Suicide Bombing is illegal under the Geneva Conventions.

BD: No it isn't.

WD: Yes it is. Says here you can't dress up as a civilian or attack civilians, as suicide bombers are wont to do.

BD: But that's nothing to do with suicide bombing. Blowing oneself up isn't itself illegal under the G.C.

WD: That's what I said.

(I know, I've taken some creative liberties here, but I found the original character of "White Doors" to be trite and unbelievable.)

[Wilber]

Yes very true, but also for the country that is asking them to fight and win.

It would be much easier to carpet bomb the whole country and just start over. But then we would be the bad guys.

Winning is far more important than fighting. Winning is the only reason to fight. Asking people to fight if there isn't every intention of winning by whatever means necessary is more criminal than anything the combatants may do.

[bk59]

What about a suicide bomber who wears a uniform and attacks a military target (think Japan's kamikazes)? Would that be illegal under the Convention? Hmmm? The answer, of course, would be no. And why? Because suicide bombing isn't illegal under the G.C. Dressing up as a civilian for the purposes of conducting military operations and intentionally targeting civilians is prohibited. Suicide bombing, the tactic, is not.

Which as you can see above - if you were interested in listening to others as opposed to only listening to yourself - is exactly what I stated.

Care to keep going or would you like to continue to make an ass of yourself?

The USA never complained to the League of nations about Kamikaze pilots. They just killed them.

Both perfectly legal.

I hate to weigh in on this, but it looks to me as if Black Dog is the one with the correct argument.

A suicide bomber is someone who detonates a bomb with no hope of surviving the explosion. Nowhere is this stated as illegal in the Conventions.

If the bomber has not distinguished him or herself from the civilian population then that makes them an illegal combatant, but, as Black Dog pointed out, this does not make suicide bombing as a method illegal. Even you have acknowledged that point above, so I am a little unclear as to why you are so intent on bashing Black Dog.

The intended target is also relevant to whether or not the action is legal or illegal, but again, the method - suicide bombing - is not specifically stated as illegal.

[Black Dog]

Winning is far more important than fighting. Winning is the only reason to fight. Asking people to fight if there isn't every intention of winning by whatever means necessary is more criminal than anything the combatants may do.

Um. Doesn't it kinda depend on what your objectives are? I mean, if the measure of victory we set for ourselves in Afghanistan is the establishment of a stable, reasonably democratic state, wouldn't blowing the shit out of the place to defeat the insurgency defeat the purpose of the mission?

[bk59]

Winning is far more important than fighting. Winning is the only reason to fight. Asking people to fight if there isn't every intention of winning by whatever means necessary is more criminal than anything the combatants may do.

Wow do I have a problem with that statement. I just don't buy the position that the end justifies the means. If you are fighting a war and decide that a certain segment of your population (let's say for example an ethnic group) is hindering your efforts, does that mean you can just kill everyone who meets that criteria (everyone in that ethnic group)?

I hope that is not what you are saying, but your statement above seems to indicate that it would be acceptable to perform genocide as long as it helped you to win a war.

[Army Guy]

Kimmy:

It seems somewhat fake for us to declare "our" kind of fighting to be "ok" while declaring "their" kind of fighting to be a "crime against humanity".

exactly my piont.

I think he's pointing out that we declare actions good or bad all the time.

Heres the twist what is not acceptable behavior in Canada under law or under our broad set of values or morals , is expected behavior in time of conflict. Which is why we really need to be objective when creating rules of engagements for our soldiers. we do not want to put them at a disavantage before they even enter the field of combat.

Charles Anthony:

Indeed and I think we should be judging our own personal actions a little more often lest we become cold and heartless.

Or should we only judge other people's actions?

Soldiers do judge thier own actions everyday, were put under the micro scope by everyone, Canadians , our comrads, the media, everyone... however it is the soldiers that relive the decissions every night, in thier dreams, it is them that have to live with those actions for the rest of thier lives.

Does it make us cold and heartless, no it does not.

I honestly have no idea what you are doing over there

I'm fighting for the same rights and freedoms that you enjoy in Canada, only i'm assisting the Afgans in achieveing thiers.... But let me ask you this question do you think we as a nation have a responsabilty to help other nations less fortunate as ours.

Surprise, surprise: not every Canadian supports the "mission" in Afghanistan.

You are working for a select number of Canadians.

It's not a surprise, not all Canadians believe that other nations or groups of people should have the same rights and freedoms as we have. everyone is entitled to thier own opinion hence why we live in a fantastic country.

Where you are wrong, is i represent them as well as you, there is no coming back from a mission ,walking off the plane and saying that was for you and you wait not you....Don't like it then vioce your opinon and take action...it's one of your rights...

All I can do is go by what you say. So far, I doubt that you are objective. Which is fine. You are the one doing the "work" over there.

Objective, every second we are outside the wire we are objective, shoot or no shoot decisions are made dozens of times everytime we go out. if you mean i'm not objective because we've decided to error on the side on caution, how is that wrong...

[Army Guy]

White doors:

I just want to comment on the Genva conventions for a second. Who enforces the convention, for sake of argument Nazi germany was on trail and has charged the allies with fire bombing civilian targets they provide a convention reference. In real life was there infact any charges brought again'st the allieds....something that has again reared it's head with our national war museum...but the convention clearly states that those actions were wrong....So are they law or are they a guide.

Our current Rules of engagement were written from Canadian law and conventions, however if there is a total war would we actually be abiding by the convention or what we were as a nation prepared to live with...

Wilber:

Good point but I get the impression he fears more restrictions being put on how he is allowed to fight people who recognize no restrictions. I think that is always a valid fear for people who play by the rules when they are forced to fight those who don't recognize any rules.

Bulls eye....Rules of warfare are written on the battlefield, both sides agree to give equal treatment to all combatants, IE start loping off heads of the wounded odds are the other side will return the favour...and don't let that "we are from the west we are better than that" fool you, history is full of examples of brutallity in war conducted by the west including Canadians, Example after the D-day landings and those Canadian soldiers were found exicuted by the SS orders were given out there would be no SS POW's were to be taken taken....that is clearly agian'st the conventions...

My piont is it is fine for some suit to write how warfare should be conducted in the safety of his office, it is another whole different ball game to get soldiers to abide.

[Army Guy]

Blackdog is right, the act is not illigal, the fact that he disguised himself or did not clearly identify himself as a combatant is what is agan'st the convention, however we have had Taliban indivs clearly armed in a crowd and before detonating himself shout out he was a fighting for the taliban and then detonate themself.

[Remiel]

All of this talk about uniforms and targets brings me back to a question: What do the Geneva Conventions have to say about covert combat operations and infiltration for the purpose of disabling, destroying or killing military personnel and resources? And I don't mean ongoing impersonation, I mean like donning an enemies uniform in order to gain access to one of their resource depots in order to blow it up, etc.

[Army Guy]

Remiel:

All of this talk about uniforms and targets brings me back to a question: What do the Geneva Conventions have to say about covert combat operations and infiltration for the purpose of disabling, destroying or killing military personnel and resources? And I don't mean ongoing impersonation, I mean like donning an enemies uniform in order to gain access to one of their resource depots in order to blow it up, etc.

Then one would be considered to be a spy, which after a trail one could be put to death.

"' Article 29 '. -- A person can only be considered a spy when, acting clandestinely or on false pretences, he obtains or endeavours to obtain information in the zone of operations of a belligerent with the intention of communicating it to the hostile party.

Thus, soldiers not wearing a disguise who have penetrated into the zone of operations of the hostile army, for the purpose of obtaining information, are not considered spies. Similarly, the following are not considered spies: soldiers and civilians carrying out their mission openly, entrusted with the delivery of despatches intended either for their own army or for the enemy's army. To this class belong likewise persons sent in balloons for the purpose of carrying despatches and, generally, of maintaining communications between the different parts of an army or a territory."

The definition of a spy given in this Article remains completely valid since the Geneva Convention contains no similar provision. However, a spy is also a protected person in so far as he conforms to the definition given in Article 4 of the Fourth Convention. Under Article 5 of the Convention, the spy may nevertheless be deprived temporarily of certain rights, particularly the right of communication.

"' Article 30 '. -- A spy taken in the act shall not be punished without previous trial."

The Convention contains several provisions in this respect which extend the principle and make it precise. Thus Article 3 prohibits "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples".

Article 3 , although it applies only to armed conflicts not of an international character, contains rules of absolutely general application. The prohibition mentioned is, moreover, confirmed by Article 5 and Articles 64 -76.

[p.617] It should also be noted that paragraph 2 of Article 68 authorizes the Occupying Power under certain conditions to inflict the death penalty on protected persons found guilty of espionage.

"' Article 31 '. -- A spy who, after rejoining the army to which he belongs, is subsequently captured by the enemy is treated as a prisoner of war, and incurs no responsibility for his previous acts of espionage."

[Charles Anthony]

Imagine if we wage war against a country where its citizens are content wearing loin-cloths. Not only that, but they do not even have the means to manufacture clothes, let alone a "uniform" to distinguish civilians from combattants.

I have trouble seeing the necessity to have a "uniform" as anything but horrifyingly arrogant or a mercenary ruse.

[Wilber]

Um. Doesn't it kinda depend on what your objectives are? I mean, if the measure of victory we set for ourselves in Afghanistan is the establishment of a stable, reasonably democratic state, wouldn't blowing the shit out of the place to defeat the insurgency defeat the purpose of the mission?

Wow do I have a problem with that statement. I just don't buy the position that the end justifies the means. If you are fighting a war and decide that a certain segment of your population (let's say for example an ethnic group) is hindering your efforts, does that mean you can just kill everyone who meets that criteria (everyone in that ethnic group)?

I hope that is not what you are saying, but your statement above seems to indicate that it would be acceptable to perform genocide as long as it helped you to win a war.

To fight a war without the intention of winning is a crime in itself. To ask people to kill and be killed without doing everything possible to secure a victory is a crime against them. If you aren't prepared to do that, you have no business fighting in the first place. Gentlemanly war went out in the 18th century. Starting with the Napoleonic Wars, nearly very war fought since has been a total war involving whole populations with civilian as well as military personnel being considered legitimate targets at one time or another.

[White Doors]

What about a suicide bomber who wears a uniform and attacks a military target (think Japan's kamikazes)? Would that be illegal under the Convention? Hmmm? The answer, of course, would be no. And why? Because suicide bombing isn't illegal under the G.C. Dressing up as a civilian for the purposes of conducting military operations and intentionally targeting civilians is prohibited. Suicide bombing, the tactic, is not.

Which as you can see above - if you were interested in listening to others as opposed to only listening to yourself - is exactly what I stated.

Indeed? Was that when you (rather unequivocally) stated that:

According to the Geneva conventions a suicide attack even against a military target is illegal.

Which would suggest that suicide bombing under any circumstances is a proscribed activity under the G.C. (which it is not).

Or was it when you point blank referred to suicide bombing as an "illegal tactic"?

For those just joining us, I'll save you the trouble of reading through and summarize things to this point:

WD: Suicide Bombing is illegal under the Geneva Conventions.

BD: No it isn't.

WD: Yes it is. Says here you can't dress up as a civilian or attack civilians, as suicide bombers are wont to do.

BD: But that's nothing to do with suicide bombing. Blowing oneself up isn't itself illegal under the G.C.

WD: That's what I said.

(I know, I've taken some creative liberties here, but I found the original character of "White Doors" to be trite and unbelievable.)

haha

You keep spinning your wheels there BD. Not having enough attantion in the 'off-line' world is plain to see.

Suicide bombers ala hapenneing in today's world are blindingly illegal in the geneve convention sense. You keep going on about how they are morally equivelant with what Canadian troops are doing in Afghanistan if you wish - but I will not dignify your tripe with a discussion on this subject going forward. I could only wish that you knew of what you speak and were aware that freedom is not 'free' as it is in your small, tiny - simplistic little world.

My pities for living in a society that you so obviously despise.

Merry Christmas to you and yours.

[White Doors]

Yes very true, but also for the country that is asking them to fight and win.

It would be much easier to carpet bomb the whole country and just start over. But then we would be the bad guys.

Winning is far more important than fighting. Winning is the only reason to fight. Asking people to fight if there isn't every intention of winning by whatever means necessary is more criminal than anything the combatants may do.

In a black and white world - perhaps. Unfortunately we live in a world much different than that. We have to think about the future of the civilized world - not the end of it.

[White Doors]

What about a suicide bomber who wears a uniform and attacks a military target (think Japan's kamikazes)? Would that be illegal under the Convention? Hmmm? The answer, of course, would be no. And why? Because suicide bombing isn't illegal under the G.C. Dressing up as a civilian for the purposes of conducting military operations and intentionally targeting civilians is prohibited. Suicide bombing, the tactic, is not.

Which as you can see above - if you were interested in listening to others as opposed to only listening to yourself - is exactly what I stated.

Care to keep going or would you like to continue to make an ass of yourself?

The USA never complained to the League of nations about Kamikaze pilots. They just killed them.

Both perfectly legal.

I hate to weigh in on this, but it looks to me as if Black Dog is the one with the correct argument.

A suicide bomber is someone who detonates a bomb with no hope of surviving the explosion. Nowhere is this stated as illegal in the Conventions.

If the bomber has not distinguished him or herself from the civilian population then that makes them an illegal combatant, but, as Black Dog pointed out, this does not make suicide bombing as a method illegal. Even you have acknowledged that point above, so I am a little unclear as to why you are so intent on bashing Black Dog.

The intended target is also relevant to whether or not the action is legal or illegal, but again, the method - suicide bombing - is not specifically stated as illegal.

Ok, you tell me where an islamic suicide bomber has distinguished him or herself from the citizen population - then you have an argument. Clearly under the Geneva conventions what they are doing is simply murder in the most cowardly of ways. Against military or civilians is irrelevent. This is not me saying this - this is the geneva conventions and the domestic laws of all of these countries.

Ironmic it is that a bunch of self loathing Canucks can vainly try to legitimize these attacks from our cozy homes is it now when Arab Israeli's are equally against this illegal method as most adjusted Canadians are.

For shame.

[Black Dog]

-double post deleted-

[Black Dog]

You keep spinning your wheels there BD. Not having enough attantion in the 'off-line' world is plain to see.

mmmhmmm...

Suicide bombers ala hapenneing in today's world are blindingly illegal in the geneve convention sense.

Where? Show me where suicide bombing is mentioned in the G.C. Because all you've shown me is that dressing up as a civilian is prohibited, as is tragetting civilians. The methods used are irrelevant. There's a few other posters here who grasp that, why are you having such a hard time?

You keep going on about how they are morally equivelant with what Canadian troops are doing in Afghanistan if you wish - but I will not dignify your tripe with a discussion on this subject going forward.

Please show me where I drew any such equivilancy. Shit: I haven't even mentioned Canadian troops in Afghanistan in this thread. My focus has been soley on addressing you idea that sucicide bombing is, to use your words, an "illegal tactic".

I could only wish that you knew of what you speak and were aware that freedom is not 'free' as it is in your small, tiny - simplistic little world.

My pities for living in a society that you so obviously despise.

What the hell are you on about?

Merry Christmas to you and yours.

Happy Holidays!!

[White Doors]

White doors:

I just want to comment on the Genva conventions for a second. Who enforces the convention, for sake of argument Nazi germany was on trail and has charged the allies with fire bombing civilian targets they provide a convention reference. In real life was there infact any charges brought again'st the allieds....something that has again reared it's head with our national war museum...but the convention clearly states that those actions were wrong....So are they law or are they a guide.

Our current Rules of engagement were written from Canadian law and conventions, however if there is a total war would we actually be abiding by the convention or what we were as a nation prepared to live with...

Wilber:

Good point but I get the impression he fears more restrictions being put on how he is allowed to fight people who recognize no restrictions. I think that is always a valid fear for people who play by the rules when they are forced to fight those who don't recognize any rules.

Bulls eye....Rules of warfare are written on the battlefield, both sides agree to give equal treatment to all combatants, IE start loping off heads of the wounded odds are the other side will return the favour...and don't let that "we are from the west we are better than that" fool you, history is full of examples of brutallity in war conducted by the west including Canadians, Example after the D-day landings and those Canadian soldiers were found exicuted by the SS orders were given out there would be no SS POW's were to be taken taken....that is clearly agian'st the conventions...

My piont is it is fine for some suit to write how warfare should be conducted in the safety of his office, it is another whole different ball game to get soldiers to abide.

But we are not in a 'total war' army guy. We are in a tactical war with the strategic intent of empowering the masses over the fanatical tyranny of the few. When they belive that there is 72 virgins waiting for their oppressed sexual urges if they TRY to kill you - that is a formiddable enemy. It is an enemy that is more formiddable strategically - than tactically. That much has been proved by your 500 - 1 KIA ratio. That is not what will grant you victory.

It is time that we see what will bring us defeat. And that is BD's white guilt NDP world outlook that will defeat us.

Think about it. The law is on your side - of which there is not little doubt - there is ZERO doubt. Your achilles heal is the moral equivellency that is being expressed here - of which you were earlier taking a part in. I now that is not your intent but I ask that you re-evaluate your opinion expressed here.

[Remiel]

I have my doubts that virgins are what motivates the average Islamic militant. Heaven yes, virgins no.