Proxy soldiers ( terrorists ) do not have Geneva Convention protections.

Why are some many people so concerned about extending geneva protections to the ununiformed proxy soldiers of mideast dictators? I really don't get it! The are murders, not soldiers in any real sence. They are payed and trained by mideast dictators and sometimes wealthy radicals. These didctators think that if they have their proxies to do their killing for them that they have Plausible Deniability. They deliberatly target civilians in futal attemtps to force goverments to change their policies. Or in other words Dictators use proxies for their own foreign policy advancement. They don't deserve Geneva protections. They want geneva protections, put on the uniform of a nation and follow the Laws of War. Till they do that, it is open season on them and any think goes!

[edit on 11/30/2007 by rockets red glare]


Mod edit to correct spelling error in thread title

[edit on 11/30/2007 by benevolent tyrant]

In another thread, I read a quote by Nietzsche:

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.

America touts itself as being a country that fights from the moral high ground, for democracy.

Tell me,

If we do not strive to be better than our enemies on this issue most especially; how does it make us any better than Terrorists?

These are people willing to sacrifice their lives for what they believe in. They will do whatever is necessary. In their minds, they also fight from the moral high ground.

Who is right? I don't know.

What I do know is that the moment we derivate from the Geneva Convention is the moment we LOSE that moral authority.

reply to post by Loki


frankly I don't give a "you know what" they think. They aren't sacraficing their lives, they are sacraficing other peoples lives. They are cowards and the scum of the earth. These animals are not deserving even the most basic Human rights protections. certainly not derserving Geneva convention protections!

Yes, they are filled with cowardice when they fight on against a better-armed, better-trained fighting unit with the odds against them. I don't buy it.

They are still human beings. They are misguided, but they still think, breathe, and have families, much in the same way that we do.

These animals are not deserving even the most basic Human rights protections.

I disagree.

I will admit that they use brutal and terroristic methods to attempt to further their agenda, but they feel, and rightly so, that nothing will be done unless something extreme is done to change the opinions of those who have the actual power to make the changes they are pushing for.

And by the way, Suicide bombers are very much so in the business of sacrificing their own lives.

edit: to fix bbcode


[edit on 11-30-2007 by Loki]

reply to post by Loki


you feel it's ok to go out and bomb innosent people just living their lives so tht they cant get their way on their political views and those of their masters. I wonder if you would feel that way if it were your family blown to peices in the market place trying to buy food. i wonder if it were your mother in that stadium, who had her arms and legs chopped off befor they got to head just for going out for milk for her child?

[edit on 11/30/2007 by rockets red glare]

Argumentum ad Hominem

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claims is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

You really should read this

you feel it's ok to go out and bomb insent people just living their lives so tht they cant get their way on their political views and those of their masters. I wonder if you would feel that way if it were your family blown to peices in the market place trying to buy food. i wonder if it were your mother in that stadium, who had her arms and legs chopped off befor they got to head just for going out for milk for her child?

I did not say this, nor did I say anything like this.

I said that we can't deviate from the rules we have set up for ourselves to prevent us from doing the very thing we are fighting to put an end to!

It's beneath us to act like terrorists. Fact.

reply to post by rockets red glare


Oh yes those better armed children holding their mama's hand and pointing their cap guns at the brave terrorist are dangerous folks. I think those families that go out and try to live a normal life have more guts and are really the brave ones!

Oh, yes. Because we all know that terrorists and insurgents exclusively target women with children. Why don't you go buy yourself a clue. A newspaper costs only $.50

Let's kick some ballistics here.

Total US Military dead: 4,326
Source

Suicide bombers target Pakistani Military

Suicide bombers target Afghan Police

The doctrine of asymmetric warfare views suicide attacks as a result of an imbalance of power, in which groups with little significant power resort to suicide bombing as a convenient tactic (see advantages noted above) to demoralize the targeted civilians or government leadership of their enemies. Suicide bombing may also take place as a perceived response to actions or policies of a group with greater power.[citation needed] Groups which have significant power have no need to resort to suicide bombing to achieve their aims; consequently, suicide bombing is overwhelmingly used by guerrilla, and other irregular fighting forces. Among many such groups, there are religious overtones to martyrdom: attackers and their supporters may believe that their sacrifice will be rewarded in an afterlife. Suicide attackers often believe that their actions are in accordance with moral or social standards because they are aimed at fighting forces and conditions that they perceive as unjust.

Idealism of Suicide Bombers

It is amazing that I am going to say this but don't be blinded by the media and reports as once upon a time we were in their shoes.

Though I don't agree with blowing people up and needless killing this is how the USA came to be we fought as guerrillas using tactics that in todays world would have us labeled as terrorists to gain freedom from the British Empire

I guess you could consider it different but we fought for the right to not have our money taken they are fighting for religion and the right to be left alone..

I guess if I had to choose a worse of the two I would say that there is never a reason to kill for money but I would fight tooth and nail if someone tried to tell me how to think..

Again I am not saying terrorism is right but I am saying that all viewpoints are objective we thought and knew to the core that we were right and Muslims are doing the same..



Respectfully
GEO

reply to post by geocom


Very well said, and I agree with you.

while we cannot stand idly by and let these sort of things 'just happen'

We can't resort to the same tactics. This is the kind of enemy we are fighting. This is not the kind of fighting we should use to end it.

To use an old adage, you can't fight fire with fire.

And, as I pointed out earlier, we set these rules down for ourselves. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act in our country's best moral interest. We're hated enough throughout the world without adding 'blatant war-crimes' to the list.

What about the proxies we (UK/USA/etc) use, like some of the Iran/Iraq militia groups we fund to 'help' out? Do they get protections?

reply to post by bobafett


If they are not a uniformed soldier of a nation the answer is no! i have to hand it to Rumsfeld. going in and taking out Sadam was a good move move! Why go kick over every rock in that part of the world when you can just take out a brutal dictator who pays them and have them come running to the killing fields! whats the total now? Iv'e heard reports it could be as high as 800,000. I call that a good start!!!

Originally posted by geocom
Though I don't agree with blowing people up and needless killing this is how the USA came to be we fought as guerrillas using tactics that in todays world would have us labeled as terrorists to gain freedom from the British Empire

On the contrary, the American revolution for the most part was fought by the Continental army in regular miltary fashion, who were uniformed and identified as military personal. While some tactics were definetly guerilla style, they were not terroristic. There is a difference. They did not target civilians as their primary targets to achieve their goals. Show me incidences of the Continental Army attacking British Civilians as a rule.

A full fledged soldier using guerrilla tactics against another military is vastly different than a terrorist enemy combatant using terror attacks on civilian targets. To give the two moral equivalence is wrong. To give the two the same protections under the Geneva convention is wrong as well. There wouldn't be different classifications if they were not to be treated differently.

reply to post by rockets red glare


What about elite groups like our SAS, and the USA equivalents? They often dress in civilian clothing and other disguise (although I heard some of them were being dumasses and driving humvees blaring out the Bruce Springsteen!)

Those guys are not in uniform for some missions, do they get protections?

reply to post by Loki

Save your money and go get a "fill in the bank" Your defence of these murders is beyond! You say you don't agree with killing or war and them defend these killers. Typical liberal selective outrage. The real problem is that socialists hate america because they love brutal authoritarian communist and socialist regimes and blame America for the down fall of the Soviets. We did and I'm glad we did! They love the thought of redistribution of wealth in the name of equality "everyone equally miserable. It's funny really. 400 million russians couldn't make it work. Billions of asians can't make it work. East europeans hated it. And yet you see people still trying. governments don't create wealth people do! If you punish the producers of wealth you won't have any.



[edit on 11/30/2007 by rockets red glare]

reply to post by bobafett

I could be wrong on this, but once captured they would identify themselves as members of the military, with rank and serial number. Doing such, I believe would afford them protection by the opposing Army as a Prisoner of War, even though they were not in miliary uniform. Enemy combants would probably not afford them this protection but full blown militaries would have to, under the Convention. Again, I would have to read the Convention again to be sure.

It's only when you don't identify yourself or you aren't a member of the military that you would be at risk.

Originally posted by rockets red glare
reply to post by Loki

 

frankly I don't give a "you know what" they think. They aren't sacraficing their lives, they are sacraficing other peoples lives. They are cowards and the scum of the earth. These animals are not deserving even the most basic Human rights protections. certainly not derserving Geneva convention protections!

You're talking about America, right?

Originally posted by rockets red glare
Why are some many people so concerned about extending geneva protections to the ununiformed proxy soldiers of mideast dictators?

there are always two sides to a story and not really any difference in soldiers trained by western governments and soldiers from the mideast. This should be clear after all the pictures from torture in Iraq, illigal invasion of Iraq, innosent people murdered in Iraq.

As for the Afghanistan war with the pupose to "free the people of Afghanistan", and get rid of the taliban, the very same warriors America trained themselfes when the russians where in Afghanistan. just shows how the west changes sides in war after our own needs.

I really don't get it! The are murders, not soldiers in any real sence. They are payed and trained by mideast dictators and sometimes wealthy radicals. These didctators think that if they have their proxies to do their killing for them that they have Plausible Deniability.

And whats the difference in the west waging war with soldirs paid and trained by governments, for the purpose of oil manegement, weapon industri ongoing etc.?

They deliberatly target civilians in futal attemtps to force goverments to change their policies. Or in other words Dictators use proxies for their own foreign policy advancement.

The same can be said of the west again, just with government run by weapon and oil industries, so where is your point?

They don't deserve Geneva protections. They want geneva protections, put on the uniform of a nation and follow the Laws of War. Till they do that, it is open season on them and any think goes!

Im sure the mideast will never follow the same "laws of war" as the west, since the west made them up without the mideast.

So my point is, there are always two sides to a war, people fighting for freedom, in their own terminology.
The means they use to forfill their goal can vary, but it all ads up to the same thing...Death! civilian or not, in uniform or not, Rules or not, Geneva protection or not.

Well, rockets red glare, here's a little scenario, I wonder what you think about this one:

It's N years in the future, and Country X has grown large and powerful, and decided to invade the USA.

The general American populace don't take too kindly to this, some of them don't join the armed forces, but decide that if/when the invading troops get to their town/state, they will defend themselves. Some of this will come from improvised devices, or other guerilla tactics.

Some of these people get captured by Country X's military forces. Can Country X torture them, or otherwise deprive their protections? (We will assume for this scenario that Country X has signed the relevant treaties, but have decided that these captured people don't fit the regular POW catagory, they are 'unlawful enemy combatants' or some such other term)

reply to post by bobafett


Obviously this is your misguided interpretation of what that led to the invassion of iraq, as if there wasn't due cause. But that isn't how it happened! If the leader of The USA had held up a check for 25,000 dollors to be payed to any one who kills innosent civilians in country X, then contry X would have a reason to go to war! This is what "shoe shine boy" ak saddam did! Now he is shing the devils shoes.