It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Targeting of Civilians by Insurgents Must Stop.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   
In late 2003, Human Rights Watch stated:


Insurgents in Iraq are committing war crimes by targeting Iraqi civilians perceived to be cooperating with the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), Human Rights Watch said today.


Clarified the above mention with:


International humanitarian law, or the laws of war, absolutely prohibits the targeting of civilians. Civilians working for the occupying power are not legitimate targets of attack.

"All Iraqi civilians are protected by the Geneva Conventions," said Joe Stork, acting executive director of the Middle East and North Africa division. "It doesn't matter whether they sympathize with the U.S. occupation, or with the insurgents."

Iraq: Targeting of Civilians by Insurgents Must Stop

This article was preceded by an earlier Human Rights Article, where it mentions:


Today's car bomb attack in the Iraqi holy city of al-Najaf was a deliberate attack on civilians that violates the most fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, Human Rights Watch said.


And goes on to mention:


"Attacks that intentionally target civilians are war crimes," said Hanny Megally, executive director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East division. "We call on all Iraqi political groups and community leaders to condemn these atrocities, to support every effort to prevent them, and to bring the perpetrators to justice."

Iraq: End Deliberate Attacks on Civilians


Question: For those within the ATS community that condone [ie: approve of, sanction, agree with, etc.] the use of suicide bombers by the insurgency and foreign fighters, what are your thoughts and comments on the above articles and what they declare that such acts are classified as?

Past ATS related topics:
The Logic of Suicide Terrorism: It’s the Occupation, not the Fundamentalism
Why It Makes “Sense” For the Resistance to Target Innocent Iraqis

Thoughts and comments welcome. Save and spare the rhetoric.






seekerof




posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I agree, perhaps souljah should take a look at this thread since he supports murder of civilians. Too many of the more liberal people try to justify these murdering terrorists and i for one am tired of it.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Question: For those within the ATS community that condone [ie: approve of, sanction, agree with, etc.] the use of suicide bombers by the insurgency and foreign fighters, what are your thoughts and comments on the above articles and what they declare that such acts are classified as?


Firstly, I don't condone, approve of, sanction or agree with targeting and killing civilians for any reason. Just like I don't condone murder or the death penalty.

I do have to say, though that I understand the mindset of fighting to the death to protect what's mine, be it my child, my property, my family or my country. So, if a foreign power invaded my country and some of my countrymen joined them in an effort to gain power, and I felt that my country was threatened, I can see myself fighting this takeover, whether they be military or civilian, to protect what is rightfully mine.

If I felt my fellow countrymen were joining efforts with the invading power in what I perceived to be an effort to take my country away from me or damage it, I can see myself using whatever tools I was trained in to keep that from happening. Granted, suicide bombs and car bombs are not my expertise, so I wouldn't be using those particular weapons. But I would probably do what I thought would be most effective in getting the invaders to leave.

So, although I would find it very difficult, in a matter defense of myself or my property or family, I can see myself actually killing someone.

I'm not aware that the insurgents are military, so I'm not sure how their actions can be categorized as 'war crimes'.

Does this answer your questions?



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I did look up war crimes and as far as I can tell it doesn't matter whether they are civilians or military. What I don't know the real answer to is, "Are we at war?" Has a war been declared that is in line with international law and conventions?

War Crimes - "Any of various crimes, such as genocide or the mistreatment of prisoners of war, committed during a war and considered in violation of the conventions of warfare."

But that would just mean that war crimes are being committed on both sides of this action, which we already know.

It would be best if we all knocked it off with the war crimes, but I hardly expect the country's citizens to stop when, by their perception anyway, the invaders continue to commit them.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Uhm, I don't think they care if they are commiting war crimes, they don't conform to the same code of law that we do so in their eyes it doesn't apply to them.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
..Doesn't apply to them. O.K., does it apply to their country of origin?

Dallas



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Just stating that "I personally" don't think they care about what we, "the United States" consider to be war crimes. Looks to me the kill anyone they want, anytime they want, if they cared about commiting war crimes, they wouldn't be blowing things up every day and killing a whole bunch of people.

P.S. I live in the U.S. I wouldnt expect someone say in Argentina to follow the same law I do, cause I'm not there and they arent here.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Good point, Cylent773.



Benevolent Heretic:

as posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not aware that the insurgents are military, so I'm not sure how their actions can be categorized as 'war crimes'.

So because insurgents or foreign fighters do not wear uniforms or are not in a formal, traditional military structure, you are asserting that they do not fall under the guidelines for the rules of war? In other words, the rules of war only apply to the US and those Coalition nations in Iraq? The insurgents call what nation state their home, thier country? If it is Iraq, Iraq is still signatory to the Geneva Convention. Thus, making those fighting 'for' Iraq, be it the insurgents against the Coalition occupation or those who fight for the Coalition and/or the new Iraqi government against the insurgents, bound by the Geneva Convention.

Question: I may be mis-interpreting what you are indicating, and if I am, please correct me, but are you indicating that these insurgents, who belong to no formal military, per se', are to gain/reap all the benefits, guarentees, and protections accorded to them by the Geneva Conventions without having to obey any of the Geneva Conventions rules themselves?

So basically, all the below listed actions of the insurgents and foreign fighters is excused and excempt from them being classed as 'war crimes'?

*the systematic use of suicide bombings
*the systematic targeting of innocent civilains
*using mosques and other places of worship as a base of military operations and/or mini-fortresses where they fight from, literally
*wearing civilain clothing to mask their military operations
*the feigning of civilain status by hiding among the civilain population
*using the civilain population as 'human shields'
*the luring of Coalition forces by faking surrenders
*feigning death so as to draw Coalition forces into traps, etc.
*the booby-trapping of dead bodies, be they civilain or soldiers
*blantant kidnapping of national/foreign officials
*the blantant killing of national/foreign officials

You, as with others, are aware that everything listed above is in direct violation of the Geneve Conventions?

If the US and Coalition are to be held accountable by the Geneva Convention, should not the insurgents and foreign fighters? Again, many here demand that they be treated fairly and by the requirements of the Geneva Convention, and yet, do not have to abide those rules and guidelines themselves?

Is there not a 'double standards' issue here?





seekerof

[edit on 23-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   
I am saying that

there are a lot of issues here adn it's not as simple as 'these insurgents are committing war crimes'.

- they may be commiting war crimes.
- if so, then so are we
- if we hold them to the Geneva Conventions under international law, then they should also be protected by the Geneva Conventions under international law, but they aren't. (we hold them as enemy combatants, not prisoners of war, so they aren't protected.)
- This is not a formally declared war, it is a military action or police action, just like Vietnam.

It's a double-edged sword. As long as this isn't a formally declared war, we can hold people as 'enemy combatants' and don't have to treat them as prisoners of war (i.e. protected by the Geneva Conventions) which is GOOD for this administration.

But, they are also not bound by the Geneva conventions, cannot (?) be charged with war crimes) which is BAD for this administration.

It's just not as simple as you are trying to make it.

I have thunder and lightening. Have to shut down. I'll check back later.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   

as posted by Benevolent Heretic
I have thunder and lightening. Have to shut down. I'll check back later.


No problem and I understand.
Take care.
Yes, we can talk more on this later.
I am going no where, as of yet.
Have a good weekend if I don't see you later on.




seekerof

[edit on 23-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
QT:
P.S. I live in the U.S. I wouldnt expect someone say in Argentina to follow the same law I do, cause I'm not there and they arent here. EQT.

What I refer to is the killing of innocent women, children and men. I feel the Country of their origin has the responsibility to act on it's own to help correct the bad-breed and educate the new generations of International responsibility of that Country to eleviate future hostile growth against others.

I don't recognize ignorance of any Country saying it's their way. When it kills the innocent of other Countries in a non state of war.

Dunno..seems to me its the right way to think.

Dallas



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Source of Terror in Iraq and Re-Birth of Internatinal Terrorism:

The obvious reason for invading Iraq is still conspicuously evaded: establishing the first secure US military bases in a client state at the heart of the world’s major energy resources.

The war in Iraq incited terror worldwide. In November 2003, Middle East expert Fawaz Gerges found it "simply unbelievable how the war has revived the appeal of a global jihadi Islam that was in real decline after 9-11." Iraq itself became a "terrorist haven" for the first time, and suffered its first suicide attacks since the 13th century CK assassins.

Great Job Mister Bush - and Great Performance of the alleged "War on Terror".

Furthermore,

How can More Violence Solve this "Caues of Violence and Terror"?


The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it... Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate.... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

— Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.



www.chomsky.info...

www.globalissues.org...



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Invasion in foreign countries for the purpose of looting resources must stop before that.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Other than trying to derail the topic and spread propaganda, Souljah, your post has what to do with the Human Rights Watch assertions and claims that the insurgents are committing war crimes by blantantly attacking innocent civilains? Stick with the topic, not your own agenda. You have a number of threads you can spread your propaganda in. You do me and those interested in this topic, along with this site, a disservice by doing what you are attempting to do. If you cannot discuss, then don't post.

Anyhow, let me see here:
*Islam strictly forbids the blatant targeting of innocent civilains, along with suicide, in relation to suicide bombings.
*Islam denounces and forbids the use of holy sites as bases of military operations and actions.
*The Geneva Convention strictly forbids the blatant targeting of innocent civilains.
*The Geneva Convention strictly forbids the blatant use if mosques and sites deemed as holy as bases of military operations, etc.

So what we have hear is a religious standard and decree and international law, governed by the Geneva Conventions, that both strictly forbid the blatant targeting of innocents.

Are you condoning/agreeing with such outright actions as to blatantly target innocent civilains, despite the decrees placed on these insurgents by the religion of Muhammad, Islam, and international legal conventions, such as the Geneva Conventions?

If the Coalition occupation is the reason for these forbidden violent acts, Souljah, please do tell why these insurgents are mainly and blatantly targeting and murdering innocent civilains, people of their own kind and following the same religion?

I do not know why I ask the questions I do from you, cause what is sure is that you will not respond, and if you do, it will be to spread further propaganda. True objective discussion eludes you, does it not?








seekerof

[edit on 23-7-2005 by Seekerof]


cjf

posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
-[snip]-

*wearing civilain clothing to mask their military operations
*the feigning of civilain status by hiding among the civilain population
*using the civilain population as 'human shields'
*the luring of Coalition forces by faking surrenders
*feigning death so as to draw Coalition forces into traps, etc.
*the booby-trapping of dead bodies, be they civilain or soldiers
*blantant kidnapping of national/foreign officials
*the blantant killing of national/foreign officials

-[snip]-


Much of what is being discussed here has been argued and tried during sessions of international tribunals and war crime hearings , even as early as 1948. Some of the topics ‘partisan’ activities, both legal and illegal, have a good foundation and history beginning in Nuremburg. Some fascinating findings and arguments. A factful read for some history behind some International Law(s) and early precedence. It seems these arguments are not so new.

A good example for a start:



The evidence is clear that during the period of occupation in Yugoslavia and Greece, guerrilla warfare was carried on against the occupying power. Guerrilla warfare is said to exist where, after the capitulation of the main part of the armed forces, the surrender of the government and the occupation of its territory, the remnant of the defeated army or the inhabitants themselves continue hostilities by harassing the enemy with unorganized forces ordinarily not strong enough to meet the enemy in pitched battle. They are placed much in the same position as a spy. By the law of war it is lawful to use spies. Nevertheless, a spy when captured may be shot because the belligerent has the right, by means of an effective deterrent punishment, to defend against the grave dangers of enemy spying. The principle therein involved applies to guerrillas who are not lawful belligerents. Just as the spy may act lawfully for his country and at the same time be a war criminal to the enemy, so guerrillas may render great service to their country and, in the event of success, become heroes even, still they remain war criminals in the eyes of the enemy and may be treated as such. In no other way can an army guard and protect itself from the gadfly tactics of such armed resistance. And, on the other hand, members of such resistance forces must accept the increased risks involved in this mode of fighting. Such forces are technically not lawful belligerents and are not entitled to protection as prisoners of war when captured…..

…. We think the rule is established that a civilian who aids, abets or participates in the fighting is liable to punishment as a war criminal under the laws of war. Fighting is legitimate only for the combatant personnel of a country. It is only this group that is entitled to treatment as prisoners of war and incurs no liability beyond detention after capture or surrender.

Case Number 47, the “Hostage Trial” The Trial of Wilhelm List and Others
(Link to Trial Part III mentioned above) begin near pg. 55




posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
cjf, so you are in agreement that the actions of the insurgents in blatantly targeting and murdering innocent civilains is indeed a crime, a war crime?




seekerof



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Since when do We Listen to Geneva Conventions?

How about all the Geneva Convention in Guantanamo Camp Delta?

Or Geneva Convention when talking about how much Depleted Uranium has been dropped on Iraq?

But when YOU NEED the Geneva Convention, then its OK and then it WORKS and then we Need to Enforce it, huh?

Report of 180 Types of US Human Rights Violations Since 9/11

Pentagon War Crimes: 250.000 Nagasaki Bombs in Iraq

World Tribunal on Iraq says US killed more in Iraq than Saddam

U.S. admits torture in Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan

Bush's War Creates Terror!

And what is YOUR True Objective?

To Keep On Defending this "War on Terrorism" that created even more Havoc and has spread more Fear and Terror all over the Globe?

When you Need Human Rights Watch you Use it, and when they Point your Finger at the Good ol' Gitmo, you say they LIE.

Now, what is that called?

It Starts with the Letter "H".


cjf

posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Beyond no doubt, the insurgents are acting explicitly as war criminals.

The coalition forces are handling ‘partisan/insurgent’ reprisals of this nature with great conscious and such as rarely seen in this history of warfare. Even inside the respective coalition countries relative recent histories.


.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I can't say myself and certainly this is Seekerof's thread, but your post ..314 maybe better directed at 1600 Pensilvania Ave.

After all they may not all be Human?

Dallas



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   
And yet, Souljah, no mention from you concerning whether or not you openly, publically, within ATS, agree and back the insurgents in blatantly targeting and murdering innocent civilains. Do you condone the actions of the insurgents in blatantly targeting and murdering innocent civilains, Souljah? Be a true revolutionary that you so claim to be and answer the question, or is it that you are simply a propaganda tool being used to spread and further propaganda? Have a set and say either 'yea' or 'nay'.....

Furthermore, still no response from you as to what Islam says concerning these acts.





seekerof



new topics




 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join