Look as This Man Gets HIT!

[Aunt Spiker]

i have to say, as long as they leave us alone, i don't much give a **** anymore what happens when we leave.

that's the issue, though

They won't leave us alone.

 

[Goshin]

I'd prefer to call them "dead (insert preferred term here)".

 

[RightinNYC]

You may believe that it does, but can you support the claim with evidence?

We discussed this not 10 posts ago.

International Humanitarian Law - Additional Protocol I 1977

Art 43. Armed forces

1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.

3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.


Art 44. Combatants and prisoners of war

1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he
carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and
(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

If you do not satisfy the definition of combatant in Art. 43, you are an unlawful combatant.

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5LPHBV/$File/irrc_849_Dorman.pdf

 

[Andalublue]

We discussed this not 10 posts ago.

International Humanitarian Law - Additional Protocol I 1977



If you do not satisfy the definition of combatant in Art. 43, you are an unlawful combatant.

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5LPHBV/$File/irrc_849_Dorman.pdf

As I pointed out, 'unlawful combatant' is not synonymous with 'terrorist', and that was my original question. If they are fighting openly on home-ground against an invading force, can they be demmed to be terrorists? They can certainly be non-terrorists and still be breaking the GC and/or committing war crimes. All those defendants in Den Haag from former Yugoslavia were uniform-wearing, official combatants who were not 'terrorists', but who certainly committed war crimes. Cab we separate out the terms a little here?

 

[RightinNYC]

As I pointed out, 'unlawful combatant' is not synonymous with 'terrorist', and that was my original question. If they are fighting openly on home-ground against an invading force, can they be demmed to be terrorists? They can certainly be non-terrorists and still be breaking the GC and/or committing war crimes. All those defendants in Den Haag from former Yugoslavia were uniform-wearing, official combatants who were not 'terrorists', but who certainly committed war crimes. Cab we separate out the terms a little here?

I haven't used the word "terrorist" anywhere in this thread. The question I was responding to asked about unlawful combatants, and that's all I've talked about.

 

[Andalublue]

Back on Page 1, after BM called the Afghan resistance fighters 'terrorists', I posed this question:

Is a Taliban fighter, out in the field, fighting the Allied soldiers man-to-man still a terrorist? Isn't that what you'd be doing if someone invaded your country? I hate those woman-stoning, head-hacking, brainless religio-nutters as much as the next person, but if they're Afghans fighting foreigners in Afghanistan, I'd think twice about using the language of the WoT. It's just a war there, isn't it?

I think all of this discussion of GC, enemy combatants and war crimes has spun off from that question. What's your take on it?

I haven't used the word "terrorist" anywhere in this thread. The question I was responding to asked about unlawful combatants, and that's all I've talked about.

 

[RightinNYC]

Back on Page 1, after BM called the Afghan resistance fighters 'terrorists', I posed this question:

I think all of this discussion of GC, enemy combatants and war crimes has spun off from that question. What's your take on it?

I don't think they're "terrorists" in the technical sense, though I and others might use that phrase from time to time as shorthand for "guy who is evil and trying to kill our soldiers."

I'd like to say that if I were in their situation, I'd recognize the difference between invaders who wanted to subjugate my people and invaders who were eliminating extremist groups, building schools, and trying to introduce some form of democracy. I don't know that I would be able to recognize or appreciate that.

 

[The Giant Noodle]

Why does it make you mad?

Because our kids are getting shot by these F-in crazy ass sons of bitches!

 

[Hoplite]

Because our kids are getting shot by these F-in crazy ass sons of bitches!

Ok...that does tend to happen in war.

 

[Andalublue]

I don't think they're "terrorists" in the technical sense, though I and others might use that phrase from time to time as shorthand for "guy who is evil and trying to kill our soldiers."

Thanks for that. I worry a bit about shorthand that serves to dehumanise the enemy. That was my initial concern.

I'd like to say that if I were in their situation, I'd recognize the difference between invaders who wanted to subjugate my people and invaders who were eliminating extremist groups, building schools, and trying to introduce some form of democracy. I don't know that I would be able to recognize or appreciate that.

I think you would provided the evidence of that help was, ahem, evident. What proof is there that a) a Western-style democracy is what the people of Afghanistan desire or even understand? and that b) the Karzai régime has any interest in establishing such a pluralistic, democratic system?

 

[RightinNYC]

I think you would provided the evidence of that help was, ahem, evident. What proof is there that a) a Western-style democracy is what the people of Afghanistan desire or even understand? and that b) the Karzai régime has any interest in establishing such a pluralistic, democratic system?

Like I said, I would hope that I would understand that a pluralistic and democratic society, whatever its faults, is far preferable to an oppressive and regressive theocracy that supports terror and gets my country invaded. I don't know that I would understand that, but I can hope.

 

[Deuce]

I don't think they're "terrorists" in the technical sense, though I and others might use that phrase from time to time as shorthand for "guy who is evil and trying to kill our soldiers."

I'd like to say that if I were in their situation, I'd recognize the difference between invaders who wanted to subjugate my people and invaders who were eliminating extremist groups, building schools, and trying to introduce some form of democracy. I don't know that I would be able to recognize or appreciate that.

Canada invades Chicago. Says Chicago's government is corrupt and this is the best thing for us. Innocent people die in the process. I think I know how Chicagoans would react.

 

[RightinNYC]

Canada invades Chicago. Says Chicago's government is corrupt and this is the best thing for us. Innocent people die in the process. I think I know how Chicagoans would react.

By bitching about how the invasion was bad luck for the Cubs?

 

[Deuce]

By bitching about how the invasion was bad luck for the Cubs?

Yes, which would lead to a mass uprising to kill or repulse those evil bastards who dared jinx the Cubs.

When someone drops a bomb on your brother's house, their reason for doing it is going to be entirely irrelevant to you. They are your enemy.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

No, why? We've openly declared war and are using an organized military.

Actually, no we have not. That's one of the big hangups the left has with these wars, there was no official declaration of war. Why? You can't declare war on a religion.

 

[Deuce]

Actually, no we have not. That's one of the big hangups the left has with these wars, there was no official declaration of war. Why? You can't declare war on a religion.

Which is good because we aren't fighting a religion.

 

[Hicup]

I "think" the OP was mad about them dilly dalling on whether or not to blast the crap out of the compound and surrounding area, in fear of "collateral" damage? If I'm the one making the call, I have no hesitiation on what I would do..


Tim-

 

[Deuce]

I "think" the OP was mad about them dilly dalling on whether or not to blast the crap out of the compound and surrounding area, in fear of "collateral" damage? If I'm the one making the call, I have no hesitiation on what I would do..


Tim-

You're smiling about probably killing innocent civilians. Just sayin.

 

[Ockham]

You're smiling about probably killing innocent civilians. Just sayin.

So your claiming Hicup is someone happy about murder. That's just one step above calling someone a "baby killer". Classy Deuce. Classy. :no: