Canadians Against Suicide Bombing

[cybercoma]

White Doors,

Which scenario is illegal under the geneva convention.

Canada goes to war with the US:

1) Canadian soldiers in Canadian military uniform strap bombs to themselves, infiltrate US lines and detonate themselves causing deaths and casualties.

2) Canadian soldiers wearing civilian clothing strap bombs to themselves, walk into a Starbucks and detonate themselves causing deaths and casualties.

3) The Toronto Maple Leafs wearing hockey uniforms strap bombs to themselves, walk into the Detroit Red Wings' locker room at Joe Louis Arena and detonate themselves causing deaths and casualties.

[White Doors]

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.

Jezus dude. Just what you say here makes the act ILLEGAL. Please tell me what I am missing,. Last I checked passion does not equate justice.

There are people from the army.ca forums that would be very interested in what you have to say on this subject. Shall I invite them over to browse on your comments?

[White Doors]

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.

Illegal. Not that black and white - but generally illegal. The conventions of POW's does not apply to them. The acts of civilians does - in that context. Basically if you are not a uniformed combatent you are at the mercy of the laws of the land.

[White Doors]

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.

Please name this country.

[White Doors]

White Doors,

Which scenario is illegal under the geneva convention.

Canada goes to war with the US:

1) Canadian soldiers in Canadian military uniform strap bombs to themselves, infiltrate US lines and detonate themselves causing deaths and casualties.

2) Canadian soldiers wearing civilian clothing strap bombs to themselves, walk into a Starbucks and detonate themselves causing deaths and casualties.

3) The Toronto Maple Leafs wearing hockey uniforms strap bombs to themselves, walk into the Detroit Red Wings' locker room at Joe Louis Arena and detonate themselves causing deaths and casualties.

1) Not illegal.

2) Illegal.

3) It SHOULD be illegal that the TML are allowed to be in the NHL.

[cybercoma]

So suicide bombing is not illegal.

[White Doors]

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

really? You should do some more reading.

Try 'brainwashing and it's effects on the human mind' maybe "Former PLO terrorist'

It does and is motivating them. Testosterone is what does it. You just have to properly motivate it. Thankfully we have a free society. When you look at Iran now - this is what you see when you study history in regards to the Holy Roman Empire of the 1200's, for but one example.

I like pussy more than killing myself just to kill mine enemy and for no other reason - but you can call me crazy if you wish.

[Wilber]

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.

War is not a civilized activity, it is a last resort.

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.

What do you mean we? Surely you mean he. By your own example you admit that as far as the opposition is concerned this is a "total war" yet you seem to think that a half assed gentlemanly response is an adequate way of dealing with it when the opposition recognizes no such limitations.

[White Doors]

So suicide bombing is not illegal.

It is if you have to disguise yourself as a civilian in order to do it.

Don't blame me - blame the rules of law as defined by the Geneva conventions.

I did not make this up.

What you are saying is more akin to "Is it rape if I hear that she didn't say no' when I forced myself on her.

Canada is the 'her'.

Alot of people here need to read up on their history and re-evaulate their morality.

ARMY GUY is NOT the bad guy. If he is who he says he is, he is the knight in shining armour.

This converation is shameful because it has even gone this far without others agreeing that our soldiers are fighting the good fight. They are and if they lose - we all lose.

[August1991]

...isn't it kind of hard to draw a line between a bomb that's dropped from a plane, or propelled by a rocket, to one that's hand-delivered?

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".

Kimmy, I see a big difference between, on one hand, carefully choosing a target of military value while trying to avoid collateral damage and on the other, going into a hotel lobby filled with wedding guests and blowing them and yourself up.

Joseph Stalin randomly arrested people and killed them. Such a system inspires fear but it doesn't work in the long run. If it did, judicial systems around the world would work that way, and they generally don't.

Random bombings will not achieve a goal any more than random arrests will prevent theft.

[cybercoma]

So suicide bombing is not illegal.

It is if you have to disguise yourself as a civilian in order to do it.

Suicide bombing itself is not illegal, you said yourself soldiers are allowed to do it; being disguised as a civilian would appear to be the illegal part.

[White Doors]

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.

War is not a civilized activity, it is a last resort.

It is a last resort - but by all international law - it most certainly IS a civilized activity. Or at least we fight it that way. You are confusing MURDER with WAR. You should take some law courses.

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.

What do you mean we? Surely you mean he. By your own example you admit that as far as the opposition is concerned this is a "total war" yet you seem to think that a half assed gentlemanly response is an adequate way of dealing with it when the opposition recognizes no such limitations.

'We' as in the people that hope the western world wins? is that wrong? I hope we do win.

Am I not able to have an opinion in the war because I'm not on the front lines fighting it? if so - what about you?

I happen to maintain that we can win this war without having to resort to murderous intentional tactics.

Perhaps you should vote for the party that allows our armed forces to do this in the next election if you are truly looking out for their welfare as opposed to making them morally equivelent to murderous terrorists. If I have misrepresented you - feel free to post your own thoughts on what our soldires should be doing there.

[White Doors]

So suicide bombing is not illegal.

It is if you have to disguise yourself as a civilian in order to do it.

Suicide bombing itself is not illegal, you said yourself soldiers are allowed to do it; being disguised as a civilian would appear to be the illegal part.

Yes and I opposed that opinion how?

of course. It took you 3 pages to see what I was saying?

You can't see the tactical and moral difference between the two? is this shocking to you?

[cybercoma]

I don't know if you did, maybe I read the thread wrong.

I'll tell you what I do think, though. Murder is murder, no matter which side is doing it and for no matter which reasons they use. That doesn't mean that sometimes it isn't necessary, but it's all terrible and to act like a soldiers life isn't worth just as much as a civilians life is shameful to me.

I guess this really has nothing to do with the original point. War is what it is, I guess. It will never be pretty and words cannot convey how sad it is that we will always be killing each other until the end of humanity.

[August1991]

Flipping quickly through this thread, I tend to agree with Wilbur:

Whether their actions are legal or not will mean nothing to someone about to blow themselves up, particularly someone from a different country, religion and culture who could care less what the Parliament of Canada thinks. Just another Bill that sounds nice but means nothing and will accomplish nothing.

Who cares whether a suicide bomber has committed a crime against humanity? The person's dead.

We might be able to classify a group as "terrorists" if theu organize suicide bombings. We could say that members of the group have committed a "crime against humanity". We could strip such people of Canadian citizenship (if they have it) or deny them entry to Canada.

IOW, I want to see the practical effect of this law.

[White Doors]

I don't know if you did, maybe I read the thread wrong.

I'll tell you what I do think, though. Murder is murder, no matter which side is doing it and for no matter which reasons they use. That doesn't mean that sometimes it isn't necessary, but it's all terrible and to act like a soldiers life isn't worth just as much as a civilians life is shameful to me.

I guess this really has nothing to do with the original point. War is what it is, I guess. It will never be pretty and words cannot convey how sad it is that we will always be killing each other until the end of humanity.

You are misunderstanding. Murder is not war. Death is not suicide.

There are judgements to be had. There are decision to be made.

Does war cause death? Is suicide murder of oneself?

Is death tragic?

Moot.

Legality and morality is the topic this thread has taken and you are on the wrong side thus far.

[White Doors]

Flipping quickly through this thread, I tend to agree with Wilbur:

Whether their actions are legal or not will mean nothing to someone about to blow themselves up, particularly someone from a different country, religion and culture who could care less what the Parliament of Canada thinks. Just another Bill that sounds nice but means nothing and will accomplish nothing.

Who cares whether a suicide bomber has committed a crime against humanity? The person's dead.

We might be able to classify a group as "terrorists" if theu organize suicide bombings. We could say that members of the group have committed a "crime against humanity". We could strip such people of Canadian citizenship (if they have it) or deny them entry to Canada.

IOW, I want to see the practical effect of this law.

You can see the 'practical effect' of this 'law' or 'thinking' at Saturdays Liberal leadership convention. It will be on full display for all who want to see.

Everyone can decide how we convince ourselves that we 'reep what we sow' and should 'take it like a man' (imam??).

We are the people who have to decide. If we want mob rule and no laws - we can do it. There are laws of conflict and war just like there are domestic laws of murder and torture.

Perhaps we should just say screw it. Who cares? death is terrible. Wether caused through smoking, spousal abuse, drinking and driving or walking in front of a bus - who cares? Let's ban smoking, marriage, drinking, driving and busses. That will solve it all and we will all live 'warm and fuzzy' ever after.

[Wilber]

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.

War is not a civilized activity, it is a last resort.

It is a last resort - but by all international law - it most certainly IS a civilized activity. Or at least we fight it that way. You are confusing MURDER with WAR. You should take some law courses.

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.

What do you mean we? Surely you mean he. By your own example you admit that as far as the opposition is concerned this is a "total war" yet you seem to think that a half assed gentlemanly response is an adequate way of dealing with it when the opposition recognizes no such limitations.

'We' as in the people that hope the western world wins? is that wrong? I hope we do win.

Am I not able to have an opinion in the war because I'm not on the front lines fighting it? if so - what about you?

I happen to maintain that we can win this war without having to resort to murderous intentional tactics.

Perhaps you should vote for the party that allows our armed forces to do this in the next election if you are truly looking out for their welfare as opposed to making them morally equivelent to murderous terrorists. If I have misrepresented you - feel free to post your own thoughts on what our soldires should be doing there.

Of course you are entitled to an opinion but you should also expect it to be challenged. The definition of war is intentional murderous tactics. That's why we send them there with the best training and equipment we can, designed specifically for killing people. I'm not saying our military should have a carte blanch to do anything they want but if we aren't willing to let them do what is required to win, nothing more, we should never have sent them there in the first place. I was asked if genocide was acceptable in order to win a war. If genocide is the only way you can win and you are not prepared to commit genocide, then you should not be involved in that war. It's a serious business, not a parlor game.

We have sent them there and ultimately the combatants will decide how it will be fought regardless of what we arm chair quarterbacks and moralists say because they can't afford that luxury and have no other option.

[Black Dog]

QUOTE(cybercoma @ Nov 30 2006, 08:08 PM)

So suicide bombing is not illegal.

It is if you have to disguise yourself as a civilian in order to do it.

Don't blame me - blame the rules of law as defined by the Geneva conventions.

I did not make this up.

Hey look! The goalposts...they're moving!

You said:

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

(emphasis added)

Period, full stop. But now you're saying it's the "dressing up as a civilian" part and not the "blowing oneself up" part that is proscribed under the Conventions.

Yes and I opposed that opinion how?

of course. It took you 3 pages to see what I was saying?

You can't see the tactical and moral difference between the two? is this shocking to you?

You never made the distinction between suicide bombers dressed up as civilians and a suicide bomber in uniform. The subject of the moral difference between the two never ame up because you simply stated that suicide bombing was illegal under any circumstances.

Again, this is what you said:

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

Also:

It's an illegal tactic.

So you've either changed your position and now are arguing (in the face of direct evidence to the contrary) that your position has remain unchanged, or you expressed yourself so poorly in the first place that misunderstanding (by multiple posters) was inevitable. Given the lack of equvocation in your early statements on the illegality of suicide bombing under any circumstances, I'm gonna say it's the former. IOW: you were wrong at the start and now you're changing your story to save face. Better for you to just admit you were wrong in the first place and have done with it.

[kimmy]

...isn't it kind of hard to draw a line between a bomb that's dropped from a plane, or propelled by a rocket, to one that's hand-delivered?

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".

Kimmy, I see a big difference between, on one hand, carefully choosing a target of military value while trying to avoid collateral damage and on the other, going into a hotel lobby filled with wedding guests and blowing them and yourself up.

So what do you actually take issue with: the act of hand-delivering a bomb to the target, or the act of an attack against innocent civilians?

This is the distinction that Black Dog has been trying to make clear.

I certainly agree that walking into a hotel lobby full of wedding guests and detonating a bomb would be utterly reprehensible. Obviously. Does that even have to be said?

However, it would be equally reprehensible to target those wedding guests with a bomb dropped from a plane, a cruise missile fired from a ship, a squad with machine guns, a tank, a Blackhawk helicopter, or any other action that uniformed troops with an organized chain of command might do. It's the murder of the innocents that's a crime against humanity, not the choice of weapon.

Are "Canadians Against Suicide Bombing", or are "Canadians Against the Slaughter of Innocent Civilians"? It's the latter. And that's why specifying "suicide bombing" strikes me as self-serving.

Joseph Stalin randomly arrested people and killed them. Such a system inspires fear but it doesn't work in the long run. If it did, judicial systems around the world would work that way, and they generally don't.

Random bombings will not achieve a goal any more than random arrests will prevent theft.

Well, what about Afghanistan, say, where the suicide bombers are, in fact, targetting Canadian combat troops and installations? Those suicide bombings aren't random.

Whether they'll achieve their goals is certainly questionable, but I can't help but suspect that the suicide bombers have had an influence on Chicken Little Layton's position on our engagement in Afghanistan. Layton, of course, is completely irrelevant. More worrying, though, is that each suicide attack and Canadian casualty in Afghanistan seems to deflate support for the mission a little bit more. What worries me is that the next Liberal leader, whoever he might be, will see a political opportunity in this... he might believe that calling for Canadian withdrawal from Afghanistan might be a position that could win the next election. And he might be right.

-k

[Figleaf]

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

Cite?

There's nothing inherently less moral about suicide bombing per se, versus any other act of violence. It's a tactic and launching an organization to oppose suicide bombing makes about as much sense as launching a war on an emotional state of being like terror.

It's an illegal tactic. Because you may say there is no difference does not make it so. You have to learn that your 'opinion' as legitimate or in this case as preposterous as it is, does not count for squat.

"Guerrillas who follow the rules spelled out in the Geneva Conventions are considered to have combatant status and have some of the same rights as regular members of the armed forces.

In international conflicts, guerrillas must distinguish themselves from the civilian population if they are preparing or engaged in an attack. At a minimum, guerrillas must carry their arms openly. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3)

Under the earlier Geneva Conventions, which are more widely recognized, a guerrilla army must have a well-defined chain of command, be clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry arms openly and observe the laws of war. (Convention III, Art. 4, Sec. 2)

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)"

Link:

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Unfortunately for your argument, the cited material (though very interesting) doesn't make suicide bombing against military targets illegal, it merely excludes suicide bombers from guerilla status under the Geneva convention.

[Figleaf]

...A suicide bomber is not dressed in a military uniform acting on behalf of a national governmnet. Therefore he/she is an illegal combatant

He is not protected by the Geneva convention, but as long as he targets military installations he is not committing a war crime or crime against humanity. He's acting in the course of war.

[Figleaf]

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.

Jezus dude. Just what you say here makes the act ILLEGAL. Please tell me what I am missing,. Last I checked passion does not equate justice.

There are people from the army.ca forums that would be very interested in what you have to say on this subject. Shall I invite them over to browse on your comments?

What the hell does that mean?

[bk59]

I have to agree with the posters who are asking "What is the practical effect of this legislation?" I think that the current legislation would cover a suicide bombing as an act of terrorism. Realistically, do we really need to enumerate all of the acts that might be considered a terrorist act? It seems redundant and pointless given the definitions we already have.

You can see the 'practical effect' of this 'law' or 'thinking' at Saturdays Liberal leadership convention. It will be on full display for all who want to see.

To be blunt... what the h*ll are you talking about? How will the practical effect of a piece of legislation that wants to say "a suicide bombing is a terrorist activity" be seen at the Liberal leadership convention? Have you even read the proposed amendment? Here it is, in it's entirety:

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

1. Section 83.01 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (1.1):

(1.2) For greater certainty, a suicide bombing comes within paragraphs (a) and ( of the definition "terrorist activity" in subsection (1).

Link: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/Senate/Bill...-206_text-e.htm

I seriously have no idea where you're coming from with your statement about the leadership convention.

[bk59]

...isn't it kind of hard to draw a line between a bomb that's dropped from a plane, or propelled by a rocket, to one that's hand-delivered?

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".

This question got me thinking a bit and I'm curious to hear what people think.

It seems that illegal combatants are those who attack their enemies without distinguishing themselves from a civilian population - in other words without identifying themselves as combatants. This is why we say dressing as a civilian and then bombing a military target is wrong - the bomber has not given their enemy the opportunity to recognize them as an enemy combatant.

Now take this reasoning - that combatants should identify themselves - and apply it to the bombing from a plane example. If the military targets / personnel being bombed have no chance to defend themselves then how does that fit into the moral view that governs bombings on the ground? Those dropping the bombs have not identified themselves since the targets can't see them coming.

Thoughts? I will post my own thoughts a bit later since I don't want to send the discussion in a certain direction right off the bat.

Unfortunately I feel the need to add one last bit here for certain posters on this forum that love to jump to conclusions and just assume certain things. This question is simply that... a question that is meant to generate a bit of discussion. I am not advocating sending soldiers to war with knives only, where everyone shakes hands and introduces themselves before trying to kill one another.