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.

 

Here is your war on Terrorism ! America !

page: 21
28
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by christina-66
Pre – invasion quote; ‘The planned invasion of Iraq is nothing more than the premeditated murder of thousands of people in the name of saving them from their dictator.’


Where did you get that quote?



Originally posted by christina-66
Laughable really....were it not so galling.


Really? How about this:

Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations.

usmilitary.about.com...

Dude picks up a weapon, he's a lawful target, no matter if he's wearing a uniform or not.




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


Christina, you went through all that trouble, and right there in one sentence, it says it all.

Combatants have to comply with the rules of warfare to obtain the protections of the Conventions.

What part of it's a two-way street are you having a problem with?

And let me say this: Mercenaries are as old as armed conflict, and they have their place. One of my best friend while I was serving in combat was a mercenary, and he made really good money as they were paid a bounty on non-uniformed combatants.

I discovered that these "capitalists" would pay half the total bounty to any American who would accompany them and carry a radio. Now, even in the military, you have time off, or everyone goes on R&R, and so on. When you're on your own time, you can do what you want.

When I returned, I paid cash for a new car and cash for my house.

Nothing wrong with profits in war. Actually, the prohibition against taking **** from the defeated is a very recent phenomenon.

You keep dreaming. You and your like can wish about how things should work as much as you want to. You can cry great rivers of tears at the way things are done.

But your words have zero meaning, zero impact, and zero influence.

Why?

Because you and those like you won't be anywhere in the vicinity of where things are getting done.

Cry me a river!



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
The Geneva Conventions defined what a legitimate combatant was, and what was a prisoner of war, as well as the treatments of POW's.

To be a legitimate, QUALIFYING combatant, they must meet ALL the following criteria.

a. "that of being commanded by a person of responsibility for his subordinates."

This assumes a military organization, with a chain of command, typical of all militaries. And RANK insignia on the uniform to prove it.

Insurgents qualify here? Nope. Zero protections, zero rights.



b. "that of having a fixed, distinctive sign recognizable at a distance."

This is why conventional armies wear distinctive uniforms and insignia.

Insurgents qualify here? Nope. Zero protections, zero rights.


c. "that of carrying arms openly."

No "civilians" concealing weapons under clothing or otherwise hiding arms.

Insurgents qualify here? Some, but the other two violations mean zero protections, zero rights.


d. "that of conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

If you meet ALL these conditions, and conduct yourself so as to wage battle within these conditions, you too, are eligible for protections and treatments of lawful combatants and prisoners of war. If you don't practice ALL these conditions, you don't benefit.


The UN doesn't make the rules of war. The Geneva Conventions are the only international agreements.

Besides, the Geneva Conventions are of a contractual nature. You violate the Geneva Conventions, then I'm no longer held by them either.

I personally think any rules of war are a joke in practice. You see, to a combat soldier, your existence is focused on killing the nearest immediate threat, and when that's done, the next. On and on until your enemies are dead or have evaporated.

At the end of the day, it matters not whether a man gets killed by a .223, a .308, a grenade, a rocket, a tank round, a minigun, a five-hundred-pounder, or getting impaled, stabbed, sliced and diced, beaten to death with a helmet, skull crushed with a rock, or if really pissed, having a boot put in the middle of your back and your arms jerked sharply backwards until you hear a noise like a carrot snapping.

Niceties and nice people have nothing to do with it.

Nice rule-making people won't come near it.

So, they don't matter.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


I think you need to read ALL of the Geneva Conventions...
Not just the bits that suit your opinion..

Someone posted some good info and links a little earlier..
Maybe read them...



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

Maybe you are the one who needs to read them.

Read all of them.

Especially the parts on what a person has to do to receive GC benefits.

Because if you don't fully qualify - you will place yourself at the mercy of folks like me who know the rules.

And are probably pissed at them for not following them.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 


Well, you said this..

b. "that of having a fixed, distinctive sign recognizable at a distance."
This is why conventional armies wear distinctive uniforms and insignia.
Insurgents qualify here? Nope. Zero protections, zero rights.


But the Geneva Convention says this.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he
carries his arms openly:


Not quite the same thing...
Your post was correct except you leave out the parts that show exclusions..
Kinda twists your stated facts a little.

But I'm sure that's not your intention, you being the honest type..



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

Yeah, well, military necessity trumps that element.

Self defense trumps that element.

Minimizing risk to civilians trumps that element.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by backinblack
 

Yeah, well, military necessity trumps that element.

Self defense trumps that element.

Minimizing risk to civilians trumps that element.


So you agree your post was missleading???

But I do have to wonder when you outnumber the enemy 100-1 and are useing tanks, drones and all the other high tech gadgets against guys with only basic weapons and some sloppy IEDs..

Ten years and no win.???



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Omitting facts to suit your needs huh? Busted!
But I guess facts too are only factual in the "eye of the beholder".

The beholder of Jeff Dahmers eyes thought it was fine to inject acid into peoples brains then store them in his refrigerator. Only problem is that society at large thinks he needed to be stopped. We cant as a society try to fight gang warfare in our cities at home and then promote organized violence abroad. Professions become obselete and it is sad to see people lose jobs. But Id rather it be jobs, then human lives. So would you. Humans are inherently good.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salamandy
reply to post by backinblack
 


Omitting facts to suit your needs huh? Busted!
But I guess facts too are only factual in the "eye of the beholder".

The beholder of Jeff Dahmers eyes thought it was fine to inject acid into peoples brains then store them in his refrigerator. Only problem is that society at large thinks he needed to be stopped. We cant as a society try to fight gang warfare in our cities at home and then promote organized violence abroad. Professions become obselete and it is sad to see people lose jobs. But Id rather it be jobs, then human lives. So would you. Humans are inherently good.



What FACTS did I omit and does the rest of your post have a point?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Americas military is extremely powerful. Problem is nobody even is clear as to why we are "occupying" these parts. I think of us are a little embarrassed quite frankly. But basically we dont even have a marker as to when to label ourselves victorious.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Sorry, I believe it was FarArcher who omitted facts as you pointed out. I quoted the wrong poster



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salamandy
reply to post by backinblack
 


Americas military is extremely powerful. Problem is nobody even is clear as to why we are "occupying" these parts. I think of us are a little embarrassed quite frankly. But basically we dont even have a marker as to when to label ourselves victorious.


I thought you may not have meant that post for me..All good.

The US seems to be good at killing from distance..
Air attacks and naval attacks if close enough...

They don't seem so competent when it comes to ground assaults...
Or that's seems to be what we are led to believe..
You have to wonder why with all the troops, equipment and $$Billions pumped into Afghanistan and Iraq, the US doesnt appear to have gained much..
I'd say in Afghanistan it has done the opposite..There are now MORE US enemies there than when the US first invaded..
I'd also say the US is now more prone to terrorist attacks..
Not really how a "war on terror" is meant to work out..



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Not really how a "war on terror" is meant to work out..


30 years into the "War on Drugs" and the DEA cannot move fast enough to keep up with all the new designer drugs that are introduced into the market regularly to slip under controlled substance regulations and get kids high all while the original drugs that sparked the war circulate just as well as ever.

I am sure that gives hope to anyone wondering why 10 years into another war on a noun we are looking so much better off.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salamandy
reply to post by backinblack
 


Omitting facts to suit your needs huh? Busted!
But I guess facts too are only factual in the "eye of the beholder".


Nope. Facts are facts. In the matter of contractual agreements considered as "International law", the wording of each section is specific, and important. If the word "and" is used in a list of elements, they ALL must be met, or none are. If the word "or" is used in a list of elements, then any one of those elements can get you off the hook if it's met.



The beholder of Jeff Dahmers eyes thought it was fine to inject acid into peoples brains then store them in his refrigerator. Only problem is that society at large thinks he needed to be stopped.


Indeed. Tell me, was it men with guns who stopped him, or was it society as a whole saying "pretty please"?



We cant as a society try to fight gang warfare in our cities at home and then promote organized violence abroad.


Sure we can. Violence is violence. Fighting gang aggressors at home is no different than fighting insurgency aggressors "over there." You go where the bad guys are, and drop them.



Humans are inherently good.


We differ here. I'm not willing to apply that as a blanket statement. I've run across some humans that one would be fairly hard pressed to find any "good" in. It seems that I prefer evaluating on an individual level, and you prefer evaluating on a collective level. "Collective" leaves a really bad taste in my mouth to utter.

You see, there are some people who love people, but detest humanity, and there are some people who love humanity, but detest people. I am of the former, and you appear to be of the latter.


edit on 2011/1/5 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

backinblack, your significant lack of knowledge of fighting in warfare - even unconventional warfare - should preclude you from asking some of the dumbest questions I've ever heard.

I guarantee you, if I have 100 tanks and there's one turd in sight - (I'm assuming in your staged scenario he's not dug a hundred meters deep) then I can assure you he's toast. Literally.

Two men have defeated the Afghanis. Alexander and Ghengis. Both won by wholesale slaughter of vast regions of the country. Men, women, children, goats, horses, and everything that walked, talked, balked, and squawked.

There are definite means to defeat guerrillas, but no conventional force has ever defeated guerrillas.

We'd do much better to compel them to come to our killing boxes. An ongoing bug hunt is manpower inefficient and wastes time.

These are Muslims. Use that against them, compel them to come to you to eject you, and you kill them wholesale. And that bringing them to you is the easy part.

Truthfully, our generals strategically don't know their butts from a hole in the ground.

With fewer than 300 Special Forces, TACP's and Company Branch Operatives, they felled the Taliban government.

We really need to pull back, let the Taliban take the government, and then we know where they are, and can more easily target them.

For every tactic or strategy, there's a counter.

But if you know the unchanging basics of warfare, you'll never, ever lose.

You may not win, but neither do your enemies. You just don't lose and they'll either come around to your way of thinking, or they'll get dead.

The latter is preferable.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
But I do have to wonder when you outnumber the enemy 100-1 and are useing tanks, drones and all the other high tech gadgets against guys with only basic weapons and some sloppy IEDs..


And I must have missed the memo stating that when you go to war, you leave behind everything so you're on equal footing with the enemy.

"Sloppy IEDs"? Lemme guess, you've never been to Iraq, have you?

And outnumbering the enemy doesn't really mean much when the insurgents basic tactic is to hide in the civilian population.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

You seem to have a problem with killing at a distance.

It's great.

You couldn't do it up close or far away, so don't bother criticizing folks who are actually doing it.

It's not like they'll man up and face us.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
You go where the bad guys are, and drop them.



I just have to ask when the US is going to adopt this policy? It seems admirable and you seem to be from the US. Maybe you can convince the US military to start just going where the bad guys are? You know that is not what happens currently I am sure.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
And I must have missed the memo stating that when you go to war, you leave behind everything so you're on equal footing with the enemy.

"Sloppy IEDs"? Lemme guess, you've never been to Iraq, have you?

And outnumbering the enemy doesn't really mean much when the insurgents basic tactic is to hide in the civilian population.



LMAO!!!
Really? Sorry but this is too funny!
"We are the US and we have the biggest, baddest military on Earth. We have the technology, the supplies, the manpower, and the training. We are the US and we are better than anyone
but.....

The enemy is really good at hiding."
edit on 5-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join