Wow, Just Wow...
-
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
-
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.
RichardM1 wrote:
Like the inevitable resistance in Germany and Japan, after they were invaded and occupied by the Allies in WWII?
Now you are taking extremes. You can, of course, grind down your enemy to such a state that being occupied is preferable to continuing to fight. Even so, there was ineffective resistance in both these countries.
RichardM1 wrote:
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.
SEALS, Spec. Ops.? Who mentioned the military? The word covert existed before there was a United States, let alone SEALS and Spec. Ops.
Bob Emmett wrote:
any effective resistance against superior forces requires covert operations. Covert operatives are indistinguishable from civilians.
The key word is resistance. Covert operations by the resistance. (Who, you will remember, do not wear gold lamé Elvis costumes for easy identification).
RichardM1 wrote:
So, if I understand you, you think the resistance fighters are breaking the GC.
No. The GC is not a dress code for war. It merely defines who are to be treated as PoW on capture/surrender. If you do not fall into those definitions, you forfeit the right to be treated as a PoW. How you are treated is up to your captors.
RichardM1 wrote:
Are you OK with indefinitely holding the 'resistance fighters' in Gitmo?
Depends on what each is found guilty of.
RichardM1 wrote:
You don't know history, but you invoke it.
I am well aware that in the majority of cases there is resistance to the invader. It may be crushed. In the case of Germany and Japan, they had been crushed, any will to resist expired on their surrender (save for a few, ineffective, pockets), virtually everyone was relieved that the War was over.
RichardM1 wrote:
You didn't know the GC, but you invoked it.
Sorry, no. I was merely going on the passages that you invoked. I think the GC is a laughable attempt to turn War into a game of Cricket.
RichardM1 wrote:
You don't know covert ops, but you sa
-
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
Bob Emmett wrote:
However, indiscriminate attacks on non-combatant civilians by occupiers or resistance are just not on.
We are agreement on this, so we should think about it.
Bob Emmett wrote:
It depends on the circumstances as to which I support.
Bob Emmett wrote:
If they attempt to subvert the elected Iraqi government, they are criminals.
Fair enough.
Bob Emmett wrote:
What happens in Iraq is up to the Iraqis.
Which is different from condemning them.
Bob Emmett wrote:
perhaps the new regime will do so as effectively.
Probably not, given their track record. :sigh:
Bob Emmett wrote:
And rendering resistance useless.
Goes back to the GC, which I think we agreed on, but probably for different reasons. But I am not saying it to sanction civilian killing.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Really? I must have missed that.
I haven't seen you argue enough to tell if you are being sarcastic. If not, go back and look at the attacks on civilians. Look at attacks on mixed neighborhoods, w/no military present.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Please look up the definition of internecine.
Thank you. I did have it too limited. So, other than 'civilians trying to buy food' and 'insurgents', who were the parties in the internecine warfare?
Bob Emmett wrote:
I shall berate myself incessantly this afternoon.
While I appreciate the offer, you don't have to, and I take it back, given the first statement I quoted.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Collaborators are a fair target for a resistance movement.
And if that were all they were attacking, I would not be complaining about it. If it were here, I probably would be for it. Of course, I would give the guilty bastards a fair and speedy trial before I shot them. But women and children going to market does not fit my definition of collaborator.
Bob Emmett wrote:
The USA is merely attempting to further its own ends as regards Gas and Oil, as per usual.
You just got done telling me we don't ha
-
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.
Nothing will make you think we went in for anything else but oil. You don't think it was inconsistent that we would invade and kill for it, but not make it a priority to pump it, and not be prepared to kill more to keep it. Yet you say we were willing to kill as many as it took to get all of it. I think we can stop this part of the conversation, as you can't convince me, and I can't convince you.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Like the inevitable resistance in Germany and Japan, after they were invaded and occupied by the Allies in WWII?
Now you are taking extremes. You can, of course, grind down your enemy to such a state that being occupied is preferable to continuing to fight. Even so, there was ineffective resistance in both these countries.
RichardM1 wrote:
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.
SEALS, Spec. Ops.? Who mentioned the military? The word covert existed before there was a United States, let alone SEALS and Spec. Ops.
Bob Emmett wrote:
any effective resistance against superior forces requires covert operations. Covert operatives are indistinguishable from civilians.
The key word is resistance. Covert operations by the resistance. (Who, you will remember, do not wear gold lamé Elvis costumes for easy identification).
RichardM1 wrote:
So, if I understand you, you think the resistance fighters are breaking the GC.
No. The GC is not a dress code for war. It merely defines who are to be treated as PoW on capture/surrender. If you do not fall into those definitions, you forfeit the right to be treated as a PoW. How you are treated is up to your captors.
RichardM1 wrote:
Are you OK with indefinitely holding the 'resistance fighters' in Gitmo?
Depends on what each is found guilty of.
RichardM1 wrote:
You don't know history, but you invoke it.
I am well aware that in the majority of cases there is resistance to the invader. It may be crushed. In the case of Germany and Japan, they had been crushed, any will to resist expired on their surrender (save for a few, ineffective, pockets), virtually everyone was relieved that the War was over.
RichardM1 wrote:
You didn't know the GC, but you invoked it.
Sorry, no. I was merely going on the passages that you invoked. I think the GC is a laughable attempt to turn War into a game of Cricket.
RichardM1 wrote:
You don't know covert ops, but you sa
Bob Emmett wrote:
SEALS, Spec. Ops.? Who mentioned the military? The word covert existed before there was a United States, let alone SEALS and Spec. Ops.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Covert operatives are indistinguishable from civilians.
But you are changing this to "Civilians are indistinguishable from civilians." Nice tautology. My point was that covert does not require you to dress as a civilian. So your point that they must do so is wrong.
Bob Emmett wrote:
It may be crushed. In the case of Germany and Japan, they had been crushed, any will to resist expired on their surrender
If you look at the few post WWII resistance forces, I only found two related to post WWII occupation, they had uniforms, some operated into the '60s, and they all had to do with throwing off the communist oppressor, not the capitalist one. So their will to fight was not crushed. And they wore uniforms. And lasted years. So we were both wrong and right.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Depends on what each is found guilty of.
Being resistance fighters. That is all that is required.
Bob Emmett wrote:
I think the GC is a laughable attempt to turn War into a game of Cricket.
:wtf: ? We aren't supposed to agree on anything! How did that happen? Both of us better rethink our positions! :laugh:
Bob Emmett wrote:
You assume that a covert operation is one carried out by the military.
No. You stated covert action must be done in civilian clothes. I pointed out they need not be.
Bob Emmett wrote:
oil
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
However, indiscriminate attacks on non-combatant civilians by occupiers or resistance are just not on.
We are agreement on this, so we should think about it.
Bob Emmett wrote:
It depends on the circumstances as to which I support.
Bob Emmett wrote:
If they attempt to subvert the elected Iraqi government, they are criminals.
Fair enough.
Bob Emmett wrote:
What happens in Iraq is up to the Iraqis.
Which is different from condemning them.
Bob Emmett wrote:
perhaps the new regime will do so as effectively.
Probably not, given their track record. :sigh:
Bob Emmett wrote:
And rendering resistance useless.
Goes back to the GC, which I think we agreed on, but probably for different reasons. But I am not saying it to sanction civilian killing.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Really? I must have missed that.
I haven't seen you argue enough to tell if you are being sarcastic. If not, go back and look at the attacks on civilians. Look at attacks on mixed neighborhoods, w/no military present.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Please look up the definition of internecine.
Thank you. I did have it too limited. So, other than 'civilians trying to buy food' and 'insurgents', who were the parties in the internecine warfare?
Bob Emmett wrote:
I shall berate myself incessantly this afternoon.
While I appreciate the offer, you don't have to, and I take it back, given the first statement I quoted.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Collaborators are a fair target for a resistance movement.
And if that were all they were attacking, I would not be complaining about it. If it were here, I probably would be for it. Of course, I would give the guilty bastards a fair and speedy trial before I shot them. But women and children going to market does not fit my definition of collaborator.
Bob Emmett wrote:
The USA is merely attempting to further its own ends as regards Gas and Oil, as per usual.
You just got done telling me we don't ha
RichardM1 wrote:
Which is different from condemning them.
As previously stated: 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. As long as their paramount objective is removing the occuping forces, I don't condemn anyone assisting in the resistance, foreign or otherwise.
RichardM1 wrote:
who were the parties in the internecine warfare?
Racial: Kurds, Arabs, and minorities Tribal: Allah alone knows! Political: Ba'athists and the usual suspects Religion: Christians and the usual suspects
RichardM1 wrote:
But women and children going to market does not fit my definition of collaborator.
Nor mine. I was identifying civilians who might be considered legitimate targets by a resistance.
RichardM1 wrote:
You just got done telling me we don't have the balls to actually take the petroleum, once we are there.
The US hugely underestimated the degree of 'unrest' that would follow the removal of Saddam. I expect that, when costed out, giving autonomy to the Kurds, the Government to the Shi'a, and money the Sunni, proved to be the cheaper option.
RichardM1 wrote:
Why, pray tell, are we pissing our blood and money away sending even more troops to Afghanistan,
To de-stabilise Pakistan for the next 20 years and prevent the IPI pipeline? Just a guess.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you think that was also the only reason the UK went into both?
That, and our continuing pretension to be seen as more than just an insignificant little island off the coast of Europe.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
Nothing will make you think we went in for anything else but oil. You don't think it was inconsistent that we would invade and kill for it, but not make it a priority to pump it, and not be prepared to kill more to keep it. Yet you say we were willing to kill as many as it took to get all of it. I think we can stop this part of the conversation, as you can't convince me, and I can't convince you.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Nothing will make you think we went in for anything else but oil.
No.
RichardM1 wrote:
You don't think it was inconsistent that we would invade and kill for it, but not make it a priority to pump it, and not be prepared to kill more to keep it.
If I remember correctly, the US did try to renew the oil production infrastructure early on, but the degree of 'unrest' made it impossible. It is not inconsistent. You may have the political support for a quick conquest and peaceful handover of power, but not for a protracted counter-insurgency program. Political support for a military action diminishes over time.
RichardM1 wrote:
Yet you say we were willing to kill as many as it took to get all of it.
I said I was quite sure Bush was prepared to kill as many as it took. But he was not the Fuhrer, merely a president in a democratic republic.
RichardM1 wrote:
I think we can stop this part of the conversation, as you can't convince me, and I can't convince you.
I concur.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
SEALS, Spec. Ops.? Who mentioned the military? The word covert existed before there was a United States, let alone SEALS and Spec. Ops.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Covert operatives are indistinguishable from civilians.
But you are changing this to "Civilians are indistinguishable from civilians." Nice tautology. My point was that covert does not require you to dress as a civilian. So your point that they must do so is wrong.
Bob Emmett wrote:
It may be crushed. In the case of Germany and Japan, they had been crushed, any will to resist expired on their surrender
If you look at the few post WWII resistance forces, I only found two related to post WWII occupation, they had uniforms, some operated into the '60s, and they all had to do with throwing off the communist oppressor, not the capitalist one. So their will to fight was not crushed. And they wore uniforms. And lasted years. So we were both wrong and right.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Depends on what each is found guilty of.
Being resistance fighters. That is all that is required.
Bob Emmett wrote:
I think the GC is a laughable attempt to turn War into a game of Cricket.
:wtf: ? We aren't supposed to agree on anything! How did that happen? Both of us better rethink our positions! :laugh:
Bob Emmett wrote:
You assume that a covert operation is one carried out by the military.
No. You stated covert action must be done in civilian clothes. I pointed out they need not be.
Bob Emmett wrote:
oil
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
But you are changing this to "Civilians are indistinguishable from civilians."
O.K. "The Resistance are indistinguishable from non-combatants".
RichardM1 wrote:
My point was that covert does not require you to dress as a civilian.
True. But covert operations undertaken by the Resistance do require them to dress as civilians. Otherwise they would be engaging the enemy much as the defeated uniformed military had, which would be pointless.
RichardM1 wrote:
Being resistance fighters. That is all that is required.
But you posted 'resistance fighters', the '' implied that you did not believe them to be resistance fighters, hence "Depends on what each is found guilty of." Assuming that they were pukka resistance fighters, they should have been summarily shot upon capture. They were killing, or intending to kill, US military. The US has decided to keep them alive - fine, they are yours to keep until you are sick of them. Then send them home.
RichardM1 wrote:
You stated covert action must be done in civilian clothes. I pointed out they need not be.
See above. Covert action by the resistance.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
But you are changing this to "Civilians are indistinguishable from civilians."
O.K. "The Resistance are indistinguishable from non-combatants".
RichardM1 wrote:
My point was that covert does not require you to dress as a civilian.
True. But covert operations undertaken by the Resistance do require them to dress as civilians. Otherwise they would be engaging the enemy much as the defeated uniformed military had, which would be pointless.
RichardM1 wrote:
Being resistance fighters. That is all that is required.
But you posted 'resistance fighters', the '' implied that you did not believe them to be resistance fighters, hence "Depends on what each is found guilty of." Assuming that they were pukka resistance fighters, they should have been summarily shot upon capture. They were killing, or intending to kill, US military. The US has decided to keep them alive - fine, they are yours to keep until you are sick of them. Then send them home.
RichardM1 wrote:
You stated covert action must be done in civilian clothes. I pointed out they need not be.
See above. Covert action by the resistance.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Bob Emmett wrote:
True. But covert operations undertaken by the Resistance do require them to dress as civilians. Otherwise they would be engaging the enemy much as the defeated uniformed military had, which would be pointless.
This is not even a 'get them killed to free them' philosophy. It is 'get them killed, so I don't killed'. They have made themselves more important than the people they are trying to 'liberate', that is no different than what Saddam did. He just understood he needed to kill them himself, to make sure they stayed 'liberated'. I could say we are now there to support the Shi'ite resistance that started in 91, so our presence is as legitimate as the Syrian who is there to get us out. I believe the 'resistance' fighters should be acting one way to be legitimate, and that the parts of the GC that pertain to keeping civilians alive are important to both sides. You believe that it does not matter what the resistance does, it is legitimate, since it is either working against an invader, or is just settling internal scores that the rest of us should not worry about, e.g. Sunni blowing up a Shi'ite market place. Again we are at an impasse, unless you think I mis-characterize your positions.
Bob Emmett wrote:
they should have been summarily shot upon capture. They were killing, or intending to kill, US military. The US has decided to keep them alive - fine, they are yours to keep until you are sick of them. Then send them home.
Interesting. I don't think anyone should be shot, once captured, but I am fully aboard on the feeling that some should be. I don't think the GC allows summary execution, in any case, and (most of the time, I believe) it is in our best interest to not dd so. Not so much an impasse as a clearer understanding of each others' beliefs.
Opacity, the new Transparency.