Why hasnt Al Jazeera been disbanded...

[Hobbit]

That is because we are "liberators", and as such we have to meet a higher standard than our foes.



Wether they were a danger to anyone or not is really not the point. I'm just pointing out that such non-military personel in a battle zone are always considered fair game by the enemy. That's just the way it is. And there are private mercenaries included in the mix, that makes them even more likely targets of the enemy. That's war - especially when the enemy is in the form of a gorilla/underground.

My point about the contractors is just that, were this a delecared war operating under the Genevia convention, the contractors could be shot and it would be in compliance with the rules of war.

No, they could not, as the contractors are ordered to stay away from combat zones. These contractors are being kidnapped from relatively calm cities well away from the fighting, which is expressly forbidden by the Geneva Convention. Also, civilian casualties are covered under the Geneva Convention if they could have been killed by accident or were being used as human shields. You can't kidnap somebody and saw his head off and call it an accident any more than you can dump a bucket of paint on my head and call it rain.

As I stated in the above post, these guys are the vilest of the vile and, in my book, are only one step up from child molestors and people who answer their cell phones in the theater. Don't waste your breathe defending them.

 

[CSM]

If we extend Wade's logic to the ridiculous, then every Iraqi is a legitimate target. Carry it even further and we have justification for genocide.

 

[Flying Duck]

If we extend Wade's logic to the ridiculous, then every Iraqi is a legitimate target. Carry it even further and we have justification for genocide.

You left out UN peacekeepers. (Not in Iraq, of course, but in other countries the UN has occupied.)

 

[Avatar4321]

If we extend Wade's logic to the ridiculous, then every Iraqi is a legitimate target. Carry it even further and we have justification for genocide.

Well you know this wouldnt be the first time that communists like Wade supported genocide.

 

[Zhukov]

That's war - especially when the enemy is in the form of a gorilla/underground.

And guess what, when the enemy uses guerilla tactics, the Geneva Conventions don't apply.

That is because we are "liberators", and as such we have to meet a higher standard than our foes.

Since you just skimmed over the first of my statements can I then assume you agree you're wrong?

Wether they were a danger to anyone or not is really not the point. I'm just pointing out that such non-military personel in a battle zone are always considered fair game by the enemy.

Always considered fair game by the enemy? Well the enemy considered the inhabitants of WTC 1 and 2 fair game, do you agree with them on that point? Or is it a matter of selective agreement with these evil murderes on your part with whatever segment of their philsophy you agree with or find convenient to use to make your arguments?

Obviously they consider our entire country, indeed the whole world their battle zone. So you are in effect saying they can kill whoever they want.

And there are private mercenaries included in the mix,

Notice the armed mercenaries had their vehicle attacked by RPG's from a distance, their vehicle then aerated with multiple rounds of assualt weapon fire, and their lifeless bodies dragged out of the ruined shell of their vehicle, mutilated, and then strung up.

The innocent are captured alive, held for ransom, and then slaughtered like animals.

It's almost funny that the terrorists see the difference, and you do not.

My point about the contractors is just that, were this a delecared war operating under the Genevia convention, the contractors could be shot and it would be in compliance with the rules of war.

Were this a declared war operating under the Geneva convention then the war would be over.

Under the Geneva Conventions they can't even fire on our soldiers unless they put on a uniform, so you can stop bringing up the Conventions.

 

[wade]

No, they could not, as the contractors are ordered to stay away from combat zones. These contractors are being kidnapped from relatively calm cities well away from the fighting, which is expressly forbidden by the Geneva Convention. Also, civilian casualties are covered under the Geneva Convention if they could have been killed by accident or were being used as human shields. You can't kidnap somebody and saw his head off and call it an accident any more than you can dump a bucket of paint on my head and call it rain.

As I stated in the above post, these guys are the vilest of the vile and, in my book, are only one step up from child molestors and people who answer their cell phones in the theater. Don't waste your breathe defending them.

In a war, in an enemy country, it does not matter where the civilians are located - they are not protected by the Genevia convention. The rules of the Genevia convention only apply to the indiginous civilians.

I'm not defending them, I'm pointing out the realities and rules of war.

 

[wade]

Wrong again. Prisoners of war is a part of war, but can only be applied to soldiers.

1. These people were clearly civilians, wearing no uniforms and carrying no weapons. Mercs would be at least carrying weapons, if not wearing uniforms as well.

That's right, and under the Genevia convention they should not be in the war zone. In the case of an invaded nation that has not yet surrendered, that means the entire nation. There are no provisions for civilians.

2. These people were rebuilding city infastructure, not military bases. If they were building military bases, surrounded by armed soldiers, the insurgents wouldn't have had a chance in hell to grab them.

It is not clear what they were doing. Working for the Army is the best info I've been able to find. But, it does not matter. We are at war in Iraq, as far as I know, they have not surrendered. Therefore, no civilians are supposed to be in country.

3. The last person they kidnapped was a prominent charity worker who was both well known and well known as a person whose agenda was focused towards aiding refugees.

Yes, and even the bad guys are calling for her immeadiate release. Let's hope whoever has her will release her soon.

 

[theim]

In a war, in an enemy country, it does not matter where the civilians are located - they are not protected by the Genevia convention. The rules of the Genevia convention only apply to the indiginous civilians.

I'm not defending them, I'm pointing out the realities and rules of war.

So it would be A OK if we found some Syrians in Iraq, suspected them of working for terrorists, lined 'em up and mowed 'em down? That would be OK by Geneva conventions?

 

[wade]

So it would be A OK if we found some Syrians in Iraq, suspected them of working for terrorists, lined 'em up and mowed 'em down? That would be OK by Geneva conventions?

Probably so, unless they were in uniform. And given the lack of any established uniform, it might be allowable no matter what. For that matter, the same might apply to all insurgents, unless they establish some kind of official uniform.

Admittedly, the Genevia convention rules really do not cover this kind of conflict very well. Effectively, insurgents have no rights because they have no official status, and the I don't think the coalition has any rights because there's not been an official declaration of war. It's a very antiquated set of rules.

 

[wade]

And guess what, when the enemy uses guerilla tactics, the Geneva Conventions don't apply.

Sure they do. The enemy, if caught, has no rights and can be shot, as they are not in official uniform.

Always considered fair game by the enemy? Well the enemy considered the inhabitants of WTC 1 and 2 fair game, do you agree with them on that point? Or is it a matter of selective agreement with these evil murderes on your part with whatever segment of their philsophy you agree with or find convenient to use to make your arguments?

Different enemy, until about a week or so ago when the allied.

You are missing the point. Oh well...

Obviously they consider our entire country, indeed the whole world their battle zone. So you are in effect saying they can kill whoever they want.

There was no connection of significance between the Iraqi's and Al-Queda until about a week ago.

Were this a declared war operating under the Geneva convention then the war would be over.

Under the Geneva Conventions they can't even fire on our soldiers unless they put on a uniform, so you can stop bringing up the Conventions.

Right. So this is an illegal war on several levels. The USA/Coalition should have delcared war on Iraq, officially. Without that, there are no rules.

 

[Hobbit]

Sure they do. The enemy, if caught, has no rights and can be shot, as they are not in official uniform.




Different enemy, until about a week or so ago when the allied.

You are missing the point. Oh well...



There was no connection of significance between the Iraqi's and Al-Queda until about a week ago.



Right. So this is an illegal war on several levels. The USA/Coalition should have delcared war on Iraq, officially. Without that, there are no rules.

Stuff your rules and stuff your exceptions, and while you're at it, pull your head out of your backside! I don't care what kind of legal hoops you can jump through to show that what these guys are doing is somehow 'legal,' the point is that what they're doing is sick, barbaric, and just plain wrong. Anyone with half a brain can tell that sawing the heads off of innocent civilians is wrong in any context, and if we ever catch these guys, nobody will ever blame the soldiers if they crucify these sub-humans with rusty nails and flaming wood and then pour salt and pig entrails on them.

I don't want to hear any more about the Geneva convention allowing this because "they're in a war zone" or because "they're not actually in the Army." That's the most retarded logic I've ever heard. During the rebuilding of Europe, Nazi sympathizers didn't get away with terrorist acts, and neither should these Arabs. Trying to justify their actions is getting closer and closer to putting you on their level.

 

[wade]

Hobbit,

My point is there are a set of rules established for war. We are not following them, and neither are they.

And, I never said we should not try to catch the perpetrators, and when we do we should punish them appropriately.

 

[Hobbit]

Hobbit,

My point is there are a set of rules established for war. We are not following them, and neither are they.

And, I never said we should not try to catch the perpetrators, and when we do we should punish them appropriately.

We most certainly are. We've even let them be leniant on the uniform rule so we don't actually have to give them a trial. We're not using hollow points or NBCs. We're wearing uniforms. We're not deliberately assaulting civilians in any way unless provoked. We're giving the prisoners the standard Red Cross aid package. It's all by the numbers. I, personally, think it would be ok to conveniently ignore a few, but then again, that puts us on their level. Wait, what am I saying? It puts us on France's level.

 

[wade]

We most certainly are. We've even let them be leniant on the uniform rule so we don't actually have to give them a trial.

How does not giving them a trial show that we ARE following any kind of rules?

We're not using hollow points or NBCs.

We are using cluster bombs, indendiary missiles, and 50 calibur and larger guns to fire at individuals (.30 calibur is the largest allowed for this purpose). All technically war crimes.

We're wearing uniforms.

The military are, the contract mercenaries arn't (well, not a legit uniform anyway).

We're not deliberately assaulting civilians in any way unless provoked.

We have fired rockets and artillary into populated areas where we knew there were a large number of civilians to maybe take out one or two insurgents.

We're giving the prisoners the standard Red Cross aid package.

To who?

It's all by the numbers. I, personally, think it would be ok to conveniently ignore a few, but then again, that puts us on their level. Wait, what am I saying? It puts us on France's level.

If all you read is the Bush spin, then yes it's "all by the numbers". Do you really believe everything Bush tells you?

Anyway, you are really missing my overall point. This is a bloody war and occupation. You (and others) are someohow expecting the enemy to fight on our terms of conduct, where of course we hold the huge advantage, and of course they are not doing so.

Let me ask you this. If the USA were somehow invaded and occupied by a hostile nation with a different set of beliefs than ours, lets say the former Soviets, or maybe modern Iran, and our military were defeated and they then installed a puppet government and started setting things up according to their ways of life, what do you think we would do? Do you really think we would not kidnap and execute civilian occupiers? Of course we would! And probably quite brutally. That's the way such counter-insurgencies are done. For every bad thing they do to us, I'm sure they can point at a bad thing we are doing to them. That's how wars of this nature are fought, by doing bad things to the other side.

So it is foolish to whine and cry about it. We have to accept that if they manage to nab a contractor, he's probably a dead man. We can formulate a military response, if we can think of an acceptable one, but it is pointless, and in fact counter productive to get all upset about it. When you do, you just feed into what the bad guys are trying to accomplish.

Like so many things in this "war on terror", we are just going to have to develop thicker skins. We are going to have to accept this as a consequence of our situation and go on with things. The contractors knew the risks when they decided to go to Iraq, where they could earn a years pay in a few months (I know cause I considered going myself - $450k for an 18 month contract - mostly tax free). If they are not satisfied with the security there, then they should leave. But if they stay, knowing the situation, and they get kidnapped, well, those are the breaks.

Hopefully we will be able to figure out how to better protect the contractors, so that they stay in Iraq, do what needs to be done, so that maybe we can get out of Iraq sometime in the next decade or so. But the more irate we get about these few kidnappings, the more we encourage the insurgents.

This is the way this kind of war is fought - why are you acting surprised about it?

 

[Hobbit]

How does not giving them a trial show that we ARE following any kind of rules?



We are using cluster bombs, indendiary missiles, and 50 calibur and larger guns to fire at individuals (.30 calibur is the largest allowed for this purpose). All technically war crimes.



The military are, the contract mercenaries arn't (well, not a legit uniform anyway).



We have fired rockets and artillary into populated areas where we knew there were a large number of civilians to maybe take out one or two insurgents.



To who?



If all you read is the Bush spin, then yes it's "all by the numbers". Do you really believe everything Bush tells you?

Anyway, you are really missing my overall point. This is a bloody war and occupation. You (and others) are someohow expecting the enemy to fight on our terms of conduct, where of course we hold the huge advantage, and of course they are not doing so.

Let me ask you this. If the USA were somehow invaded and occupied by a hostile nation with a different set of beliefs than ours, lets say the former Soviets, or maybe modern Iran, and our military were defeated and they then installed a puppet government and started setting things up according to their ways of life, what do you think we would do? Do you really think we would not kidnap and execute civilian occupiers? Of course we would! And probably quite brutally. That's the way such counter-insurgencies are done. For every bad thing they do to us, I'm sure they can point at a bad thing we are doing to them. That's how wars of this nature are fought, by doing bad things to the other side.

So it is foolish to whine and cry about it. We have to accept that if they manage to nab a contractor, he's probably a dead man. We can formulate a military response, if we can think of an acceptable one, but it is pointless, and in fact counter productive to get all upset about it. When you do, you just feed into what the bad guys are trying to accomplish.

Like so many things in this "war on terror", we are just going to have to develop thicker skins. We are going to have to accept this as a consequence of our situation and go on with things. The contractors knew the risks when they decided to go to Iraq, where they could earn a years pay in a few months (I know cause I considered going myself - $450k for an 18 month contract - mostly tax free). If they are not satisfied with the security there, then they should leave. But if they stay, knowing the situation, and they get kidnapped, well, those are the breaks.

Hopefully we will be able to figure out how to better protect the contractors, so that they stay in Iraq, do what needs to be done, so that maybe we can get out of Iraq sometime in the next decade or so. But the more irate we get about these few kidnappings, the more we encourage the insurgents.

This is the way this kind of war is fought - why are you acting surprised about it?

I'd still like to know where you're getting all this. I've not heard word one of the U.S. hiring mercs, and if somebody else is hiring mercs, it's out of our hands.

You can bet that even if there was a cruel counter-insurgency in the U.S., it wouldn't be as widespread or as cruel as this one. We've had a few rebellions before, and they've never been this brutal.

Not giving them a trial is part of the rules of war. They are prisoners of war and therefore not subject to our laws, and yes, everybody who has been incarcerated in Guatanamo has recieved the standard aid package. The Red Cross has seen to this personally.

As for .50 cal bullets, those are used all the time against terrorists and drugged up crazies that can't be stopped by a .30 cal. They're not standard issue and aren't used against the regular militia guys. They're only used when needed, and while the rules are stretched a bit, they are not broken.

Oh, and all that "listening to Bush" propaganda crap is BS and you know it, unless you actually believe all of your liberal buddies at the mass media, the same guys who claim we lost a weapon cache when it was gone before we got there.

Now, once and for all, I'm going to put to rest your claim that civilians are fair game in a combat zone:

n the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Any non-combatant, including soldiers who are wounded, have lain down arms, etc. may not have violence done towards them, nor may they be taken as hostages.

Now, whether it's your intent or not, you're being quite inflammatory. Every time we get on here to vent our rage against these inhuman brutes, you're like 'well, it's a war and stuff like this happens in war.' BULLCRAP!!! Stuff like this only happens in war when your enemy is truly sick and evil. These guys are the lowest form of life on the planet and there is nothing you can do to even remotely justify their actions. Right now, I see you as being no better than a lawyer defending a murderer or child molestor he knows is guilty.

 

[Flying Duck]

He's worse, at the least the lawyer doing it for money, not to undermine the military of his own country.

 

[Zhukov]

Sure they do. The enemy, if caught, has no rights and can be shot, as they are not in official uniform.

Hahaha. Has no rights and can be shot? That's what "the Geneva Conventions do not apply" means silly wade. The Geneva Conventions don't tell you who you're allowed to summarily exectue, they say who has what rights in a war zone.

These terrorists are not an army, a militia, or a volunteer corps. They are just guys with guns hiding among the populace. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to random guys with guns hiding among the populace.

Different enemy, until about a week or so ago when the allied.

I don't care if they call themselves Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Islamic Jihad, or Mohammed's Dirty Underwear.

Their distinctions, your distinctions, are irrelevant. They are all terrorists, they have common goals, the co-operate with one another, and they consider the whole world their battle ground. Since you claim that they are allowed to kill any civilian in the war zone, as they reckon it, you are condoning terrorist attacks all around the world.

"You are missing the point."

There was no connection of significance between the Iraqi's and Al-Queda until about a week ago.

Nice diversion. Our soldiers are not being attacked by Iraq. Zarqawi is not an Iraqi.

Right. So this is an illegal war on several levels. The USA/Coalition should have delcared war on Iraq, officially. Without that, there are no rules.

Wrong. The Geneva Conventions do not stipulate any declaration of war. That is not the purview of the Conventions. The Conventions deal with battlefield casualties and treatment of prisoners. We are bound by the Geneva Conventions regardless of the situation because we signed them. But, as stated above, the Geneva Conventions mention nothing concerning random guys with guns hiding among the populace.

 

[wade]

I'd still like to know where you're getting all this. I've not heard word one of the U.S. hiring mercs, and if somebody else is hiring mercs, it's out of our hands.

I already posted a link on this, there are some 20,000 mercs in Iraq and Kuwait, hired by contractor companies such as Halliburton.

You can bet that even if there was a cruel counter-insurgency in the U.S., it wouldn't be as widespread or as cruel as this one. We've had a few rebellions before, and they've never been this brutal.

We have never been successfully invaded and occupied. You (intentionally) miss the point.

Not giving them a trial is part of the rules of war. They are prisoners of war and therefore not subject to our laws, and yes, everybody who has been incarcerated in Guatanamo has recieved the standard aid package. The Red Cross has seen to this personally.

But this is not a declared war. So what you are saying is that these people can be held indefinitely without any rights whatsoever? Just because they are accused?

As for .50 cal bullets, those are used all the time against terrorists and drugged up crazies that can't be stopped by a .30 cal. They're not standard issue and aren't used against the regular militia guys. They're only used when needed, and while the rules are stretched a bit, they are not broken.

There is no drugged up crazies that cannot be stopped with a .30 calibur round. You are confusing .262 with .30 in this discussion. .50 calibur rounds are for shooting vehicles, aircraft, and hardened positions, not individuals. I agree it is a pretty silly point, but those are the rules.

However you are ignoring the fact that cluster bombs are being used, and those are explicitly a banned weapon.

Oh, and all that "listening to Bush" propaganda crap is BS and you know it, unless you actually believe all of your liberal buddies at the mass media, the same guys who claim we lost a weapon cache when it was gone before we got there.

The liberal mass media? There are 6 compaines in the USA which own almost all 6000 television channels, 15,000 radio stations, and some 80% of the newspapers. The Mass-Media is no longer "liberal", its a corporate controlled propaganda machine. Why do you think this anti-Kerry movie is being shown on thousands of channels right now, but they refused to show F-911?

Now, once and for all, I'm going to put to rest your claim that civilians are fair game in a combat zone:

Any non-combatant, including soldiers who are wounded, have lain down arms, etc. may not have violence done towards them, nor may they be taken as hostages.

Now, whether it's your intent or not, you're being quite inflammatory. Every time we get on here to vent our rage against these inhuman brutes, you're like 'well, it's a war and stuff like this happens in war.' BULLCRAP!!! Stuff like this only happens in war when your enemy is truly sick and evil. These guys are the lowest form of life on the planet and there is nothing you can do to even remotely justify their actions. Right now, I see you as being no better than a lawyer defending a murderer or child molestor he knows is guilty.

You are missing the whole point. I'm not justifying what they are doing (the beheadings), I'm just pointing out that this is the way this kind of war is fought and to pretend otherwise is foolishness. I'm not saying we should forgive them, or that they are justified, I'm just saying this is the way it is and always has been. What we should not do is inflame it into more than it is - the normal actions of a gorilla enemy. We should find the perpetrators, and punish them accordingly, but lets not extend their 15 minutes of fame any longer than absolutely necessary - that is what they want.

 

[theim]

The liberal mass media? There are 6 compaines in the USA which own almost all 6000 television channels, 15,000 radio stations, and some 80% of the newspapers. The Mass-Media is no longer "liberal", its a corporate controlled propaganda machine. Why do you think this anti-Kerry movie is being shown on thousands of channels right now, but they refused to show F-911?

How does corporate=conservative? Most of the leaders of the Democratic Party are filthy rich businessmen.

How is it a right-wing propaganda machine? Were you in a hole during memo-gate? Have you not picked up an edition of the New York Times in the last decade? And may I venture a guess that you consider the likes of Le Monde and the BBC to be the beacons of objectivity?

 

[Hobbit]

I'm through arguing. It's obvious that while wade will state over and over again that he's not justifying these animals, he will continue to do so.

Oh, and America has been invaded and occupied. We started out occupied in 1776 and we didn't kidnap the wives and children of redcoats and hold them hostage. We then got invaded and partially occupied in 1812, same thing there. Half of what is now the U.S. was invaded and successfully occupied in the 1960s and nearly all, if not all, of the war crimes done were done by the invaders (half my family was hanged without trial by a Union regiment solely because they were southern slave owners).