Wow, Just Wow...
-
You mean that, instead of providing the IRA with money for guns, the Irish-Americans should have sent uniforms?
RichardM1 wrote:
Long enough to be put in a PW camp instead of being summarily executed?
Only when captured. While the shooting is going on, there is no distinction between those in uniform and those in 'civvies'. Each will be shot. But the resistance know that they will be summarily executed, they forego their right to be treated as PoW.
RichardM1 wrote:
Not hiding in the population, pretending to be a civilian, certainly makes life harder for the insurgent.
They are civilians, they are not hiding. They are civilians trying to kill as many of the invaders as they can.
RichardM1 wrote:
But it comes down to whether you think your life is more important than of the civilians you are ostensibly trying to free.
But the resistance know that they will be summarily executed. They are prepared to die for the liberation of their country.
RichardM1 wrote:
Are you trying to protect your people or just hurt them enemy?
They are trying to kill and disrupt the invaders. All the above relates solely to those who are resisting the presence of a foreign power.
RichardM1 wrote:
Like Golda Meir said: "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us"
Rather: Peace will come when the citizens of the USA love their children more than Oil.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Multipart answer Are we still talking about WWII? You are speaking in the present tense, so it does not sound like it. My responses are based on you speaking in the present tense.
Bob Emmett wrote:
You mean that, instead of providing the IRA with money for guns, the Irish-Americans should have sent uniforms?
No. My Irish-American brothers and I should have sent nothing to those murdering communist terrorist provo bastards.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Only when captured. While the shooting is going on, there is no distinction between those in uniform and those in 'civvies'. Each will be shot.
Where do you get that? Even in the video, the gunner did not shoot the wounded guy again. He wanted to! But, until the situation changed because other people arrived, he did not. The main reason we end up shooting civilians now is that we can't tell 'armed civilians' :rolleyes: from insurgents. If the insurgents wore uniforms, like the GC demands, it would be less of a problem. This video being a 'wonderful' case in point.
Bob Emmett wrote:
But the resistance know that they will be summarily executed, they forego their right to be treated as PoW.
Bullshit. We do not summarily execute prisoners, non-protected combatant or otherwize3. In fact, the question in OUR country is whether we should treat them as though they are protected combatant prisoners (when they are not), or if we should put them through our 'justice' system. Your argument, in the context of current day Iraq/Afghanistan, is flat wrong.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
You mean that, instead of providing the IRA with money for guns, the Irish-Americans should have sent uniforms?
RichardM1 wrote:
Long enough to be put in a PW camp instead of being summarily executed?
Only when captured. While the shooting is going on, there is no distinction between those in uniform and those in 'civvies'. Each will be shot. But the resistance know that they will be summarily executed, they forego their right to be treated as PoW.
RichardM1 wrote:
Not hiding in the population, pretending to be a civilian, certainly makes life harder for the insurgent.
They are civilians, they are not hiding. They are civilians trying to kill as many of the invaders as they can.
RichardM1 wrote:
But it comes down to whether you think your life is more important than of the civilians you are ostensibly trying to free.
But the resistance know that they will be summarily executed. They are prepared to die for the liberation of their country.
RichardM1 wrote:
Are you trying to protect your people or just hurt them enemy?
They are trying to kill and disrupt the invaders. All the above relates solely to those who are resisting the presence of a foreign power.
RichardM1 wrote:
Like Golda Meir said: "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us"
Rather: Peace will come when the citizens of the USA love their children more than Oil.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Bob Emmett wrote:
They are civilians, they are not hiding. They are civilians trying to kill as many of the invaders as they can.
Right. Brilliant! Why didn't I think of that? All our guys are just civilians in uniform who are invading Iraq to fill up their monster trucks. :rolleyes: If anyone gets hurt, it's not OUR fault. If you read the GC, it talks about combatant, and specifies that 'resistance' fighters are combatants, and that they are responsible for following those 4 rules. Those rules are meant to protect the lives of non-militant civilians. There are no non-militant civilians carrying arms in the resistance. When they join the resistance and pick up a weapon, they are combatants. When they are combatants, they have to have a uniform. They have to be in that uniform, essentially 24/7, or they are not openly under arms. You are playing semantic games. They are getting real civilians killed by there actions. You are condoning it.:mad:
Bob Emmett wrote:
They are prepared to die for the liberation of their country.
I'm glad they are willing to risk death to protect their country, that can brave and honorable. It is that the fucking cowards are willing risk the death of real non-combatant civilians to hide that pisses me off. Oh. That and when they purposefully kill innocent, non-combatant civilians from their own country on purpose and chicken shits like you are not willing to condemn it. Those both piss me off, as well. If they would even just it put on 10 minutes before combat, it would save real civilian lives!
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
You mean that, instead of providing the IRA with money for guns, the Irish-Americans should have sent uniforms?
RichardM1 wrote:
Long enough to be put in a PW camp instead of being summarily executed?
Only when captured. While the shooting is going on, there is no distinction between those in uniform and those in 'civvies'. Each will be shot. But the resistance know that they will be summarily executed, they forego their right to be treated as PoW.
RichardM1 wrote:
Not hiding in the population, pretending to be a civilian, certainly makes life harder for the insurgent.
They are civilians, they are not hiding. They are civilians trying to kill as many of the invaders as they can.
RichardM1 wrote:
But it comes down to whether you think your life is more important than of the civilians you are ostensibly trying to free.
But the resistance know that they will be summarily executed. They are prepared to die for the liberation of their country.
RichardM1 wrote:
Are you trying to protect your people or just hurt them enemy?
They are trying to kill and disrupt the invaders. All the above relates solely to those who are resisting the presence of a foreign power.
RichardM1 wrote:
Like Golda Meir said: "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us"
Rather: Peace will come when the citizens of the USA love their children more than Oil.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Rather: Peace will come when the citizens of the USA love their children more than Oil.
Dan Rather said that? I guess he is as stupid as I thought he was. And if you live by his collected wisdom, I would ask you to reconsider your philosophy. It makes a really good catch phrase, but you show me one drop of oil that we control in the Mid East because of the invasion. Go check who the Iraqis are selling their drilling rights to: Notice how non-lucrative the rights are.[^] You are just spouting talking points. Come up with some real arguments. And condemn those fucking bastards for both killing and hiding among the civilians.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Multipart answer Are we still talking about WWII? You are speaking in the present tense, so it does not sound like it. My responses are based on you speaking in the present tense.
Bob Emmett wrote:
You mean that, instead of providing the IRA with money for guns, the Irish-Americans should have sent uniforms?
No. My Irish-American brothers and I should have sent nothing to those murdering communist terrorist provo bastards.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Only when captured. While the shooting is going on, there is no distinction between those in uniform and those in 'civvies'. Each will be shot.
Where do you get that? Even in the video, the gunner did not shoot the wounded guy again. He wanted to! But, until the situation changed because other people arrived, he did not. The main reason we end up shooting civilians now is that we can't tell 'armed civilians' :rolleyes: from insurgents. If the insurgents wore uniforms, like the GC demands, it would be less of a problem. This video being a 'wonderful' case in point.
Bob Emmett wrote:
But the resistance know that they will be summarily executed, they forego their right to be treated as PoW.
Bullshit. We do not summarily execute prisoners, non-protected combatant or otherwize3. In fact, the question in OUR country is whether we should treat them as though they are protected combatant prisoners (when they are not), or if we should put them through our 'justice' system. Your argument, in the context of current day Iraq/Afghanistan, is flat wrong.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Are we still talking about WWII?
No. I used the Maquis because they were resisting an occupying force, which frequently carried out reprisals upon innocent, unarmed, civilians in response to the actions of the Maquis. I sincerely doubt (although I cannot prove it) that a uniformed Marquis, or the innocent citizenry, would have been treated any better had the revised GC been in force at the time.
RichardM1 wrote:
No. My Irish-American brothers and I should have sent nothing to those murdering communist terrorist provo bastards.
Does everyone in the USA claim Irish descent? :) Personally, the degree of leftism of the Provos never concerned me as much as their murdering terrorist activities.
RichardM1 wrote:
Where do you get that? Even in the video, the gunner did not shoot the wounded guy again.
Precisely, he was shot. Perhaps I should have written "shot at".
RichardM1 wrote:
The main reason we end up shooting civilians now is that we can't tell 'armed civilians' from insurgents.
Given the sectarian violence rife in Iraq, there are bound to be many armed civilians on the streets. It is a matter of deterrence and self-defence.
RichardM1 wrote:
If the insurgents wore uniforms, like the GC demands, it would be less of a problem.
It would certainly be like shooting fish in a barrel.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
They are civilians, they are not hiding. They are civilians trying to kill as many of the invaders as they can.
Right. Brilliant! Why didn't I think of that? All our guys are just civilians in uniform who are invading Iraq to fill up their monster trucks. :rolleyes: If anyone gets hurt, it's not OUR fault. If you read the GC, it talks about combatant, and specifies that 'resistance' fighters are combatants, and that they are responsible for following those 4 rules. Those rules are meant to protect the lives of non-militant civilians. There are no non-militant civilians carrying arms in the resistance. When they join the resistance and pick up a weapon, they are combatants. When they are combatants, they have to have a uniform. They have to be in that uniform, essentially 24/7, or they are not openly under arms. You are playing semantic games. They are getting real civilians killed by there actions. You are condoning it.:mad:
Bob Emmett wrote:
They are prepared to die for the liberation of their country.
I'm glad they are willing to risk death to protect their country, that can brave and honorable. It is that the fucking cowards are willing risk the death of real non-combatant civilians to hide that pisses me off. Oh. That and when they purposefully kill innocent, non-combatant civilians from their own country on purpose and chicken shits like you are not willing to condemn it. Those both piss me off, as well. If they would even just it put on 10 minutes before combat, it would save real civilian lives!
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Those rules are meant to protect the lives of non-militant civilians. There are no non-militant civilians carrying arms in the resistance. When they join the resistance and pick up a weapon, they are combatants. When they are combatants, they have to have a uniform. They have to be in that uniform, essentially 24/7, or they are not openly under arms.
Fine. You accept the rules that protect non-combatants and remove all chance of effective resistance, I wish you well of them. To me, they are idealistic and impractical. Given that the occupier has defeated the uniformed military, just what use are uniformed civilian combatants?
RichardM1 wrote:
They are getting real civilians killed by there actions.
Real civilians are killed when a military defends its country. Real French, Belgian, and Dutch, civilians were killed during the liberation of their countries. Real Iraqi civilians were killed in the overthrow of Saddam. C'est la Guerre.
RichardM1 wrote:
You are condoning it.
Think of it as collateral damage. Western civilization appears to accept, if not condone, that concept.
RichardM1 wrote:
It is that the f***ing cowards are willing risk the death of real non-combatant civilians to hide that pisses me off.
To remain inconspicuous is necessary in order to keep striking at the invader.
RichardM1 wrote:
when they purposefully kill innocent, non-combatant civilians from their own country on purpose
Well, now we are back to internecine strife, rather than removing the invader.
RichardM1 wrote:
chicken shits like you
Thank you. :)
RichardM1 wrote:
are not willing to condemn it
I condemn the violence that is being used for any reason other than the natural resistance of the citizens of any country against an invader.
RichardM1 wrote:
If they would even just it put on 10 minutes before combat, it would save real civilian lives!
And enable the fish to be clearly seen in the barrel.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a softwar
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Are we still talking about WWII?
No. I used the Maquis because they were resisting an occupying force, which frequently carried out reprisals upon innocent, unarmed, civilians in response to the actions of the Maquis. I sincerely doubt (although I cannot prove it) that a uniformed Marquis, or the innocent citizenry, would have been treated any better had the revised GC been in force at the time.
RichardM1 wrote:
No. My Irish-American brothers and I should have sent nothing to those murdering communist terrorist provo bastards.
Does everyone in the USA claim Irish descent? :) Personally, the degree of leftism of the Provos never concerned me as much as their murdering terrorist activities.
RichardM1 wrote:
Where do you get that? Even in the video, the gunner did not shoot the wounded guy again.
Precisely, he was shot. Perhaps I should have written "shot at".
RichardM1 wrote:
The main reason we end up shooting civilians now is that we can't tell 'armed civilians' from insurgents.
Given the sectarian violence rife in Iraq, there are bound to be many armed civilians on the streets. It is a matter of deterrence and self-defence.
RichardM1 wrote:
If the insurgents wore uniforms, like the GC demands, it would be less of a problem.
It would certainly be like shooting fish in a barrel.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
No. If you are OK with killing civilians, then this shooting was OK. If you are not OK with killing civilians, then the actions of the insurgents are bad. You either think there are laws to be followed, or not. If you think the GC does not apply, come out and say so.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Those rules are meant to protect the lives of non-militant civilians. There are no non-militant civilians carrying arms in the resistance. When they join the resistance and pick up a weapon, they are combatants. When they are combatants, they have to have a uniform. They have to be in that uniform, essentially 24/7, or they are not openly under arms.
Fine. You accept the rules that protect non-combatants and remove all chance of effective resistance, I wish you well of them. To me, they are idealistic and impractical. Given that the occupier has defeated the uniformed military, just what use are uniformed civilian combatants?
RichardM1 wrote:
They are getting real civilians killed by there actions.
Real civilians are killed when a military defends its country. Real French, Belgian, and Dutch, civilians were killed during the liberation of their countries. Real Iraqi civilians were killed in the overthrow of Saddam. C'est la Guerre.
RichardM1 wrote:
You are condoning it.
Think of it as collateral damage. Western civilization appears to accept, if not condone, that concept.
RichardM1 wrote:
It is that the f***ing cowards are willing risk the death of real non-combatant civilians to hide that pisses me off.
To remain inconspicuous is necessary in order to keep striking at the invader.
RichardM1 wrote:
when they purposefully kill innocent, non-combatant civilians from their own country on purpose
Well, now we are back to internecine strife, rather than removing the invader.
RichardM1 wrote:
chicken shits like you
Thank you. :)
RichardM1 wrote:
are not willing to condemn it
I condemn the violence that is being used for any reason other than the natural resistance of the citizens of any country against an invader.
RichardM1 wrote:
If they would even just it put on 10 minutes before combat, it would save real civilian lives!
And enable the fish to be clearly seen in the barrel.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a softwar
Bob Emmett wrote:
I condemn the violence that is being used for any reason other than the natural resistance of the citizens of any country against an invader.
And I condemn the violence used for any other reason than the natural imposition of one groups will on others. :rolleyes: Saying natural makes it better, right? But now we are on a common page. Condemn the foreign insurgent fighters, specifically.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Fine. You accept the rules that protect non-combatants and remove all chance of effective resistance, I wish you well of them. To me, they are idealistic and impractical.
They do not remove all chance of effective resistance, though they do make it easier to not kill civilian non-combatants. Do you think it is OK to kill civilians non-combatants to save them, as long as you are an Iraqi or non-Iraqi insurgent in Iraq?
Bob Emmett wrote:
Given that the occupier has defeated the uniformed military, just what use are uniformed civilian combatants?
"uniformed civilian combatants" :rolleyes: You are mixing apples and horse back riding. Categories in group 'A' are non-combatants, protected combatants, or non-protected combatants. Categories in group 'B' are civilian and military. Pick one from each group. All 6 combinations are valid, including civilian protected combatants and military non-combatants. Ccivilian protected combatants wear uniforms to protect themselves and civilian non-combatants Non-combatants do not take up arms. Protected combatants are obligated to certain rules, military or civilian.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Well, now we are back to internecine strife, rather than removing the invader.
No. They blow up civilians on purpose prior to the internecine portion. It was when the discriminate bombing of particular groups predominated that we started calling it religious war.
Bob Emmett wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
chicken shits like you
Thank you. :)
Sorry. Called for, but not polite. :)
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Rather: Peace will come when the citizens of the USA love their children more than Oil.
Dan Rather said that? I guess he is as stupid as I thought he was. And if you live by his collected wisdom, I would ask you to reconsider your philosophy. It makes a really good catch phrase, but you show me one drop of oil that we control in the Mid East because of the invasion. Go check who the Iraqis are selling their drilling rights to: Notice how non-lucrative the rights are.[^] You are just spouting talking points. Come up with some real arguments. And condemn those fucking bastards for both killing and hiding among the civilians.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Dan Rather said that?
No, rather as in: rather this than that.
RichardM1 wrote:
It makes a really good catch phrase, but you show me one drop of oil that we control in the Mid East because of the invasion.
Well, I know regime change didn't turn out quite as was hoped, and the USA did not get carte-blanche. But they wouldn't have got a look-in at all if Saddam had remained in power. The Russians had signed contracts with him, the Chinese were not fussy about the regimes with which they do business.
RichardM1 wrote:
Notice how non-lucrative the rights are.
Again, this bidding war was not what was planned.
RichardM1 wrote:
And condemn those f***ing bastards for both killing and hiding among the civilians.
Can't condemn them for remaining in 'civvies', it would be ludicrous for a resistance group to wear uniforms. As for the internecine killing, of course I condemn it.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Dan Rather said that?
No, rather as in: rather this than that.
RichardM1 wrote:
It makes a really good catch phrase, but you show me one drop of oil that we control in the Mid East because of the invasion.
Well, I know regime change didn't turn out quite as was hoped, and the USA did not get carte-blanche. But they wouldn't have got a look-in at all if Saddam had remained in power. The Russians had signed contracts with him, the Chinese were not fussy about the regimes with which they do business.
RichardM1 wrote:
Notice how non-lucrative the rights are.
Again, this bidding war was not what was planned.
RichardM1 wrote:
And condemn those f***ing bastards for both killing and hiding among the civilians.
Can't condemn them for remaining in 'civvies', it would be ludicrous for a resistance group to wear uniforms. As for the internecine killing, of course I condemn it.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Well, I know regime change didn't turn out quite as was hoped, and the USA did not get carte-blanche.
Wait, you think we are willing to INVADE Iraq to get their oil, but then leave without getting what we came for? :laugh: "didn't turn out quite as hoped" "this bidding war was not what was planned" You think they're a puppet that doesn't do what we want, and we let them? Screw that. If we went in for the oil, we would have the damn oil. Sorry you liberals believe the lie, but lie it is.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Wikileaks has obtained and decrypted this previously unreleased video footage from a US Apache helicopter in 2007. It shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad. They are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well. The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred. Wikileaks released this video with transcripts and a package of supporting documents on April 5th 2010 on [^] Everyone needs to see this. I'm speechless. The killing starts after 2m50s.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
When you've been in a firefight and crapped yourself then you can post something like this.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
I can post whatever I want, when I want.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
I can post whatever I want, when I want.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
Only though the bravery and sacrifice of such people (although had they know how you use the rights they fought for they may not have been as keen on defending them)
Smile and the world smiles withyou, laugh and they think you are a nutter
-
No. If you are OK with killing civilians, then this shooting was OK. If you are not OK with killing civilians, then the actions of the insurgents are bad. You either think there are laws to be followed, or not. If you think the GC does not apply, come out and say so.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
If you are OK with killing civilians, then this shooting was OK. If you are not OK with killing civilians, then the actions of the insurgents are bad.
Obviously, as a civilian, I am not OK with civilians being killed. I was not OK with civilians being killed during Operation Shock and Awe, and I am not OK with civilians being killed in skirmishes between the occupying forces and insurgents. However, history shows that armed resistance to occupying forces is inevitable, and that any effective resistance against superior forces requires covert operations. Covert operatives are indistinguishable from civilians. Thus any civilian arousing the suspicions of an occupying force could be treated as if they were combatants.
RichardM1 wrote:
You either think there are laws to be followed, or not. If you think the GC does not apply, come out and say so.
The Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War does not 'demand' that the resistance have a fixed distinctive sign, it merely states that, if they do and conditions (a), (c) and (d) are also fulfilled, they should be treated as PoW. A resistance movement is not breaking the GC by not being clearly identifiable, it is merely eschewing its protection.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
I condemn the violence that is being used for any reason other than the natural resistance of the citizens of any country against an invader.
And I condemn the violence used for any other reason than the natural imposition of one groups will on others. :rolleyes: Saying natural makes it better, right? But now we are on a common page. Condemn the foreign insurgent fighters, specifically.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Fine. You accept the rules that protect non-combatants and remove all chance of effective resistance, I wish you well of them. To me, they are idealistic and impractical.
They do not remove all chance of effective resistance, though they do make it easier to not kill civilian non-combatants. Do you think it is OK to kill civilians non-combatants to save them, as long as you are an Iraqi or non-Iraqi insurgent in Iraq?
Bob Emmett wrote:
Given that the occupier has defeated the uniformed military, just what use are uniformed civilian combatants?
"uniformed civilian combatants" :rolleyes: You are mixing apples and horse back riding. Categories in group 'A' are non-combatants, protected combatants, or non-protected combatants. Categories in group 'B' are civilian and military. Pick one from each group. All 6 combinations are valid, including civilian protected combatants and military non-combatants. Ccivilian protected combatants wear uniforms to protect themselves and civilian non-combatants Non-combatants do not take up arms. Protected combatants are obligated to certain rules, military or civilian.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Well, now we are back to internecine strife, rather than removing the invader.
No. They blow up civilians on purpose prior to the internecine portion. It was when the discriminate bombing of particular groups predominated that we started calling it religious war.
Bob Emmett wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
chicken shits like you
Thank you. :)
Sorry. Called for, but not polite. :)
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
And I condemn the violence used for any other reason than the natural imposition of one groups will on others. Saying natural makes it better, right?
Saying natural is saying that it is natural, no more no less. It is also natural for one group to seek to impose its will on others. The entire history of the human race evidences that.
RichardM1 wrote:
Condemn the foreign insurgent fighters, specifically.
Insurgent is your term. It covers more than those resisting occupation. I shall stick with resistance. As long as their paramount objective is removing the occuping forces, I don't condemn anyone assisting in the resistance, foreign or otherwise. If that is not their paramount objective, then I condemn them, foreign or otherwise.
RichardM1 wrote:
They do not remove all chance of effective resistance
OK. They remove virtually all chance of effective resistance.
RichardM1 wrote:
... though they do make it easier to not kill civilian non-combatants. Do you think it is OK to kill civilians non-combatants to save them, as long as you are an Iraqi or non-Iraqi insurgent in Iraq?
But it is the occupiers who are accidentally killing civilian non-combatants. Why not condemn the occupiers for invading, or just accept that 'collateral damage' is caused by both sides?
RichardM1 wrote:
"uniformed civilian combatants" You are mixing apples and horse back riding.
"Civilian protected combatants wear uniforms to protect themselves". So they are civilian combatants who are protected by by dint of wearing a uniform, i.e. uniformed civilian combatants. That may not be the legal definition, but as this is an informal discussion, rather than the International Court of Justice, it is clear enough. Given that the occupier has defeated the uniformed military, just what use are more uniformed civilian combatants?
RichardM1 wrote:
They blow up civilians on purpose prior to the internecine portion.
Internecine strife includes blowing up your own civilians.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Well, I know regime change didn't turn out quite as was hoped, and the USA did not get carte-blanche.
Wait, you think we are willing to INVADE Iraq to get their oil, but then leave without getting what we came for? :laugh: "didn't turn out quite as hoped" "this bidding war was not what was planned" You think they're a puppet that doesn't do what we want, and we let them? Screw that. If we went in for the oil, we would have the damn oil. Sorry you liberals believe the lie, but lie it is.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Wait, you think we are willing to INVADE Iraq to get their oil
Yes. You think that you invaded Iraq just to set up a democracy?
RichardM1 wrote:
... but then leave without getting what we came for?
You will leave having some oil, you would have had none without invading.
RichardM1 wrote:
You think they're a puppet that doesn't do what we want, and we let them? Screw that. If we went in for the oil, we would have the damn oil.
It was planned that you would go into Iraq and get all the oil. Had you used double the troops and left the Iraqi civil administration intact (regardless of whether they were Baathist or not), you might have succeeded. You might have had a more secure environment in which to rebuild the country's infrastructure, including that of the oil fields. You might have had a real puppet government with which you could negotiate more favourable terms - keeping the Russians and Chinese (and the Brits) out of your oil fields. Alas, you are bogged down in a total mess, which is costing you a bomb, and you (like the rest of us) are stoney broke. You desperately need to leave Iraq. To do so, you need various members of the government (or their masters) to keep their militias in order until you leave. Consequently, Iraq is not truly a puppet regime. You have had to take what you could get.
RichardM1 wrote:
you liberals
I merely look at what is happening before my eyes and draw my own conclusions. According to AGW believers, I am a big bad conservative. Given what the USA means by 'liberal' and 'conservative', I think I preferred the label 'chicken shit'.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Wait, you think we are willing to INVADE Iraq to get their oil
Yes. You think that you invaded Iraq just to set up a democracy?
RichardM1 wrote:
... but then leave without getting what we came for?
You will leave having some oil, you would have had none without invading.
RichardM1 wrote:
You think they're a puppet that doesn't do what we want, and we let them? Screw that. If we went in for the oil, we would have the damn oil.
It was planned that you would go into Iraq and get all the oil. Had you used double the troops and left the Iraqi civil administration intact (regardless of whether they were Baathist or not), you might have succeeded. You might have had a more secure environment in which to rebuild the country's infrastructure, including that of the oil fields. You might have had a real puppet government with which you could negotiate more favourable terms - keeping the Russians and Chinese (and the Brits) out of your oil fields. Alas, you are bogged down in a total mess, which is costing you a bomb, and you (like the rest of us) are stoney broke. You desperately need to leave Iraq. To do so, you need various members of the government (or their masters) to keep their militias in order until you leave. Consequently, Iraq is not truly a puppet regime. You have had to take what you could get.
RichardM1 wrote:
you liberals
I merely look at what is happening before my eyes and draw my own conclusions. According to AGW believers, I am a big bad conservative. Given what the USA means by 'liberal' and 'conservative', I think I preferred the label 'chicken shit'.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Bob Emmett wrote:
invaded Iraq just to set up a democracy?
No, I think we did it to get back at SH for trying to whack Daddy Bush. And because Bush thought it was The Right Thing To Do.
Bob Emmett wrote:
You will leave having some oil, you would have had none without invading.
You are really inconsistent here. If Bush was willing to go in and kill so many people just to get some oil, why do yo think he would not kill a few more to get it all? It's not like the insurgents are the ones keeping the US from getting the oil, it is the government that we installed and protect. So I understand you think the US is the bad guy, but you need to be consistent. If we are bad enough to invade for the oil, we are bad enough to get our way. Or neither.
Bob Emmett wrote:
(regardless of whether they were Baathist or not), you might have succeeded
It was a bad idea to demand the de-Baathification. Anyone who knew how to get anything done was no longer able to work.
Bob Emmett wrote:
You desperately need to leave Iraq.
Bush didn't think so. Bush had the power to stay or go. He didn't care about public opinion on it. You can say it about Obama, if you want. But if Bush had wanted the oil, we would have the oil. And we would have sold enough to pay for the war.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
And I condemn the violence used for any other reason than the natural imposition of one groups will on others. Saying natural makes it better, right?
Saying natural is saying that it is natural, no more no less. It is also natural for one group to seek to impose its will on others. The entire history of the human race evidences that.
RichardM1 wrote:
Condemn the foreign insurgent fighters, specifically.
Insurgent is your term. It covers more than those resisting occupation. I shall stick with resistance. As long as their paramount objective is removing the occuping forces, I don't condemn anyone assisting in the resistance, foreign or otherwise. If that is not their paramount objective, then I condemn them, foreign or otherwise.
RichardM1 wrote:
They do not remove all chance of effective resistance
OK. They remove virtually all chance of effective resistance.
RichardM1 wrote:
... though they do make it easier to not kill civilian non-combatants. Do you think it is OK to kill civilians non-combatants to save them, as long as you are an Iraqi or non-Iraqi insurgent in Iraq?
But it is the occupiers who are accidentally killing civilian non-combatants. Why not condemn the occupiers for invading, or just accept that 'collateral damage' is caused by both sides?
RichardM1 wrote:
"uniformed civilian combatants" You are mixing apples and horse back riding.
"Civilian protected combatants wear uniforms to protect themselves". So they are civilian combatants who are protected by by dint of wearing a uniform, i.e. uniformed civilian combatants. That may not be the legal definition, but as this is an informal discussion, rather than the International Court of Justice, it is clear enough. Given that the occupier has defeated the uniformed military, just what use are more uniformed civilian combatants?
RichardM1 wrote:
They blow up civilians on purpose prior to the internecine portion.
Internecine strife includes blowing up your own civilians.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Saying natural is saying that it is natural, no more no less.
OK, then why do you support the natural tendency of people to defend from invader overs the natural tendency to invade? You brought up 'natural', not me.
Bob Emmett wrote:
As long as their paramount objective is removing the occuping forces, I don't condemn anyone assisting in the resistance, foreign or otherwise.
If they are there to impose their beliefs on the Iraqis, after they kick us out, do you condemn them? Iraq was not a theocracy. A lot of the foreign fighters are real jihadists, in a holy war to restore Islamic rule. They are not resistance, in the sense you have defined it. They are invaders themselves. But, if them being there is OK, them must you agree with what we are doing in Afghanistan, since we are helping the Afghan anti-Taliban resistance. Or what is your excuse for why the US is wrong there?
Bob Emmett wrote:
just what use are more uniformed civilian combatants?
Their use is in not getting non-combatant civilians killed. If you have no problem with them fighting and hiding among the civilians, then you should have no problem with civilians getting killed as a result of their tactics. Because that is the direct result.
Bob Emmett wrote:
But it is the occupiers who are accidentally killing civilian non-combatants.
You actually have it correct. The 'occupiers' are accidentally killing non-combatant civilians. The insurgents are actively, purposefully, killing non-combatant civilians. Not as part of a civil war. They are killing them whether they are pro-insurgent or anti-insurgent. It is not internecine fighting, they don't care about the target's religion. They are doing terror killings, to terrorize the civilian population. That is not acceptable for a 'resistance' fighter. Except to you.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Why not condemn the occupiers for invading, or just accept that 'collateral damage' is caused by both sides?
It is collateral damage if it was not the intended result. When killing civilians is the goal of the attack, it is not collateral damage, it is a terror attack.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
If you are OK with killing civilians, then this shooting was OK. If you are not OK with killing civilians, then the actions of the insurgents are bad.
Obviously, as a civilian, I am not OK with civilians being killed. I was not OK with civilians being killed during Operation Shock and Awe, and I am not OK with civilians being killed in skirmishes between the occupying forces and insurgents. However, history shows that armed resistance to occupying forces is inevitable, and that any effective resistance against superior forces requires covert operations. Covert operatives are indistinguishable from civilians. Thus any civilian arousing the suspicions of an occupying force could be treated as if they were combatants.
RichardM1 wrote:
You either think there are laws to be followed, or not. If you think the GC does not apply, come out and say so.
The Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War does not 'demand' that the resistance have a fixed distinctive sign, it merely states that, if they do and conditions (a), (c) and (d) are also fulfilled, they should be treated as PoW. A resistance movement is not breaking the GC by not being clearly identifiable, it is merely eschewing its protection.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Bob Emmett wrote:
However, history shows that armed resistance to occupying forces is inevitable, and that any effective resistance against superior forces requires covert operations.
Right. Like the inevitable resistance in Germany and Japan, after they were invaded and occupied by the Allies in WWII? That really shows you know your history,.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Covert operatives are indistinguishable from civilians.
Again nice knowledge of history. Seals are covert, and most US Spec Ops operate covertly, yet they do not hide among the civilian population, dressed as civilians.
Bob Emmett wrote:
A resistance movement is not breaking the GC by not being clearly identifiable, it is merely eschewing its protection.
So, if I understand you, you think the resistance fighters are breaking the GC. In doing that they give up their GC protections. Are you OK with indefinitely holding the 'resistance fighters' in Gitmo? If not, why not? You don't know history, but you invoke it. You didn't know the GC, but you invoked it. You don't know covert ops, but you say how its done. You think the US invaded for the oil, then won't kill anyone for it. Have I missed any of your more glaring mistakes?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
invaded Iraq just to set up a democracy?
No, I think we did it to get back at SH for trying to whack Daddy Bush. And because Bush thought it was The Right Thing To Do.
Bob Emmett wrote:
You will leave having some oil, you would have had none without invading.
You are really inconsistent here. If Bush was willing to go in and kill so many people just to get some oil, why do yo think he would not kill a few more to get it all? It's not like the insurgents are the ones keeping the US from getting the oil, it is the government that we installed and protect. So I understand you think the US is the bad guy, but you need to be consistent. If we are bad enough to invade for the oil, we are bad enough to get our way. Or neither.
Bob Emmett wrote:
(regardless of whether they were Baathist or not), you might have succeeded
It was a bad idea to demand the de-Baathification. Anyone who knew how to get anything done was no longer able to work.
Bob Emmett wrote:
You desperately need to leave Iraq.
Bush didn't think so. Bush had the power to stay or go. He didn't care about public opinion on it. You can say it about Obama, if you want. But if Bush had wanted the oil, we would have the oil. And we would have sold enough to pay for the war.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
No, I think we did it to get back at SH for trying to whack Daddy Bush. And because Bush thought it was The Right Thing To Do.
No. It was oil. The Russians and French had agreements to develop - the USA had none.
RichardM1 wrote:
You are really inconsistent here.
No, you are being selective in your reading.
RichardM1 wrote:
If Bush was willing to go in and kill so many people just to get some oil,
I did not say that you went in to get some oil, I said: It was planned that you would go into Iraq and get all the oil.
RichardM1 wrote:
why do yo think he would not kill a few more to get it all?
I am quite sure that he was prepared to kill as many as it took.
RichardM1 wrote:
It's not like the insurgents are the ones keeping the US from getting the oil, it is the government that we installed and protect.
And which also protects the occupiers by keeping the Shi'a resistance quiet.
RichardM1 wrote:
If we are bad enough to invade for the oil, we are bad enough to get our way.
But you are not bad enough. Had you treated Iraq like Germany and Japan, you would have had all the oil.
RichardM1 wrote:
It was a bad idea to demand the de-Baathification. Anyone who knew how to get anything done was no longer able to work.
Oh good, we agree on something.
RichardM1 wrote:
Bush didn't think so. Bush had the power to stay or go. He didn't care about public opinion on it.
That's the great thing about democracy. Stuff the people, stuff Congress, stuff the cost! YeeHaw!
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Saying natural is saying that it is natural, no more no less.
OK, then why do you support the natural tendency of people to defend from invader overs the natural tendency to invade? You brought up 'natural', not me.
Bob Emmett wrote:
As long as their paramount objective is removing the occuping forces, I don't condemn anyone assisting in the resistance, foreign or otherwise.
If they are there to impose their beliefs on the Iraqis, after they kick us out, do you condemn them? Iraq was not a theocracy. A lot of the foreign fighters are real jihadists, in a holy war to restore Islamic rule. They are not resistance, in the sense you have defined it. They are invaders themselves. But, if them being there is OK, them must you agree with what we are doing in Afghanistan, since we are helping the Afghan anti-Taliban resistance. Or what is your excuse for why the US is wrong there?
Bob Emmett wrote:
just what use are more uniformed civilian combatants?
Their use is in not getting non-combatant civilians killed. If you have no problem with them fighting and hiding among the civilians, then you should have no problem with civilians getting killed as a result of their tactics. Because that is the direct result.
Bob Emmett wrote:
But it is the occupiers who are accidentally killing civilian non-combatants.
You actually have it correct. The 'occupiers' are accidentally killing non-combatant civilians. The insurgents are actively, purposefully, killing non-combatant civilians. Not as part of a civil war. They are killing them whether they are pro-insurgent or anti-insurgent. It is not internecine fighting, they don't care about the target's religion. They are doing terror killings, to terrorize the civilian population. That is not acceptable for a 'resistance' fighter. Except to you.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Why not condemn the occupiers for invading, or just accept that 'collateral damage' is caused by both sides?
It is collateral damage if it was not the intended result. When killing civilians is the goal of the attack, it is not collateral damage, it is a terror attack.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
OK, then why do you support the natural tendency of people to defend from invader overs the natural tendency to invade?
I don't. It depends on the circumstances as to which I support.
RichardM1 wrote:
If they are there to impose their beliefs on the Iraqis, after they kick us out, do you condemn them?
What happens in Iraq is up to the Iraqis.
RichardM1 wrote:
A lot of the foreign fighters are real jihadists, in a holy war to restore Islamic rule.
True. And Saddam used to 'discourage' their activities, perhaps the new regime will do so as effectively.
RichardM1 wrote:
They are not resistance, in the sense you have defined it.
If they are solely pressuring the USA to leave, they are part of resistance. If they attempt to subvert the elected Iraqi government, they are criminals.
RichardM1 wrote:
But, if them being there is OK, them must you agree with what we are doing in Afghanistan, since we are helping the Afghan anti-Taliban resistance.
Welcome to Pipelinestan. The USA is merely attempting to further its own ends as regards Gas and Oil, as per usual.
RichardM1 wrote:
Their use is in not getting non-combatant civilians killed.
And rendering resistance useless.
RichardM1 wrote:
The insurgents are actively, purposefully, killing non-combatant civilians. Not as part of a civil war. They are killing them whether they are pro-insurgent or anti-insurgent. ... They are doing terror killings, to terrorize the civilian population.
Really? I must have missed that.
RichardM1 wrote:
It is not internecine fighting, they don't care about the target's religion.
Religion? Please look up the definition of internecine. A Communist versus Fascist civil war is an internecine struggle.
RichardM1 wrote:
That is not acceptable for a 'resistance' fighter. Except to you.
Except to me? I am surprised at that, I shall berate myself incessantly this afternoon.
RichardM1 wrote:
When killing civilians is the goal of