In-My-Opinion.org

»What is the difference between war,terrorism,assassinations?«







The laws of war and the laws of which a soldier is governed

as are these links





the particular bit of interest to me is the defintions of combatants and non combatant

combatants are to be regognised by a uniform and emblem...etc

its not a bad read at all

posted by the anomaly
  man is only half himself
the other half is a bright thing
he tumbles on by luck or grace
for man is ever a blind thing

in-my-opinion.org -> Politics -> Politics and Crime (Assorted topics) -> What is the difference between war,terrorism,assassinations?



not to mention the laws that govern the treatment of the sick and injured...

you may remember the deliberate bombings by terrorists of both the red cross and the french aid group...

posted by the anomaly
  



Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the Geneva Convention sort of the go-to document for this sort of thing?

posted by CustomerDisservice
  

yes it is



and here is the laws that govern the actions of terrorists


1)...
2)...

the end

posted by the anomaly
  

9/11 was not terrorism



Quote:
army.mod.uk...

This is just for the UK army.
Quote:
and here is the laws that govern the actions of terrorists
1)...
2)...

Come on, anomaly. This topic is worth a serious discussion.
CIA assassins don't wear a uniform. And even if. I don't think that you want this to be the only difference.

Actually Bush himself stated that the 9/11 attack was not terrorism.


posted by knn

What is even more dangerous



What's even more dangerous in Bush's wishy-washy-ness is, that he not only condemned terrorism, but also "supporters of terrorism" AND additionally defined "support" so wide, that you already support terrorism by playing online casinos or by depositing your money in the wrong bank.

Yes, Crossfade, Bush is after you, too!

[CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS PICTURE]


posted by knn
  

Is the US a terrorist country?



Quote:
Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the Geneva Convention sort of the go-to document for this sort of thing?

The Geneva convention is only 50 years old. That would make soldiers prior 1950 terrorists. So the Genenevian convention cannot be taken into account.

Moreover if you take latest US behaviour (torturing prisoners by tieing them up in uncomfortable positions while making the room ice cold at Cuba) then US would become a terrorist.


posted by knn
  

Another example: Israel



Take the example of Israel. The Israeli secret service fired missiles at a car to kill a Hamas politician (actually they are civilians of whom they merely suppose they support terrorists). In other words: Licence to kill.

Civilians were killed as a side effect.

What exactly is the difference to a terroristic strike? Just the name "counter-terroristic strike"?


posted by knn
  

Another example: Spain



From 42 Spanish attacks in Iraq (there were more, but 42 were examined) Spain attacked ON PURPOSE non-military targets with outlawed cluster bombs in a small area where 5 million Iraqis live. Approx. 40% of the victims were < 16 years. Only 4 attacks were close to military targets.

Aznar has been sued because of war crimes. The defence: "Spain never declared war on Iraq".



What is the difference to terroristic attacks?

posted by knn
  

off topic



you are off topic...this is not a topic to discuss the execution of military action...it is to discuss the difference between terrorists and soldiers...but you still seem unwilling to accept the laws that govern soldiers actions and the fact that the terrorists have no such legal confinements...

we can discuss the acts of world war 2 until we are blue in the face if you like...the bombing of dresden being one of the most controvertial aspects of the whole war(more bombs were dropped on dresden in a single night that were dropped on the whole of britain throughout the entire war)

churchill was accused of war crimes because of it.

so was it immoral or wrong?

it is irrelevant to the differences between terrorists and soldiers...

they act under completely different codes of conduct and i don't think there is a soldier that wouldnt take offence to being labelled as a terrorist by some gimp on an internet forum White laugh (joking boss)

posted by the anomaly
  

Mention the laws, don't speculate



Quote:
this is not a topic to discuss the execution of military action...it is to discuss the difference between terrorists and soldiers

What the heck? It's the same question.
In other words: If soldiers are very similar to terrorists then the military is just country-organized terrorism.

What rules are you talking about except the young Geneva convention?
Quote:
the bombing of dresden

Ahem, how about the atomic bombing of civilians in Hiroshima?
Where is the difference to terrorists? Don't mention some theoretical law that wasn't applied anyway in that moment.

What is the difference between military, al-Qaeda, and CIA? Between soldiers, terrorists, assassins?

You still didn't answer it. Every "law" you mention means that soldiers prior to this law are terroristic criminals.


posted by knn
  

US prisoner? Well, well. Transport him away.



Aah, there you have it, how mixed CIA and military is and how little difference to terrorists there is:
Detainees secretly taken out of Iraq, Practice called breach of Geneva Conventions... One intelligence official familiar with the operation said the CIA has used the March draft memo as legal support for secretly transporting as many as a dozen detainees out of Iraq in the last six months. The agency has concealed the detainees from the International Red Cross and other authorities, the official said.
...
During the war in Afghanistan, the [Bush] administration ruled that al Qaeda fighters were not considered "protected persons" under the convention.


Aaah, during the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban administration ruled that al American fighters were not considered "protected persons" under the convention and could be secretly transported away for ... interrogation. US prisoner
msnbc
Michael Byers, a professor and international law expert at University of British Columbia, said that creating a legal justification for removing protected persons from Iraq "is extraordinarily disturbing."
"What they are doing is interpreting an exception into an all-encompassing right, in one of the most fundamental treaties in history," Byers said. The Geneva Convention "is as close as you get to protecting human rights in times of chaos. There's no ambiguity here."


And you wonder why the goodwill towards the US is at an all time low...
msnbc
CIA officials have not disclosed the identities or locations of its Iraq detainees to congressional oversight committees, the Defense Department or CIA investigators who are reviewing detention policy, according to two informed U.S. government officials and a confidential e-mail on the subject shown to The Washington Post.
...
The Office of Legal Counsel also wrote the Aug. 1, 2002, memo on torture that advised the CIA and White House that torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad "may be justified," and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations" conducted in the war on terrorism. Bush's aides repudiated that memo once it became public this June.


What? When? Where? Why?

Wonder what the world would turn into if Bush took the lead. Well let's read on:
msnbc
The CIA has a rendition policy that has permitted the agency to transfer an unknown number of suspected terrorists captured in one country into the hands of security services in other countries whose record of human rights abuse is well documented. These individuals, as well as those at CIA detention facilities, have no access to any recognized legal process or rights.
...
Senior defense leaders have repeatedly been called to explain and defend their policies before Congress. But the CIA's policies and practices remain shrouded in secrecy.


and
msnbc
At the same time, when transferring Rashul back to Iraq, then CIA director George Tenet asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld not to give Rashul a prisoner number and to hide him from International Red Cross officials, according to an account provided by Rumsfeld during a June 17 Pentagon press conference. Rumsfeld complied.


Hey, 2 more war criminals in the Bush administration.

Anomaly, you have it harder and harder to draw a line between these 3 groups: Military, Terrorists, CIA


posted by knn
  

not really



for a start...the taliban were a regime that supported the terrorists of al qaeda...im sure no such protected status is given to US personell under the al qaeda watch...

lets discuss the prisoners situation...turns out that this week...11 "innocent" former guantanamo bay inmates were discovered back in afghanistan...back with their old buddies...fighting against US troops...

but they were innocent werent they mr peter tatchell and other bleeding heart liberals...yes...of course they were

posted by the anomaly
  

Still no difference



Quote:
the taliban were a regime that supported the terrorists of al qaeda...im sure no such protected status is given to US personell under the al qaeda watch...

Taliban run a country (= they were the country leaders) PLUS Al-Qaeda's 9/11 attack was an "Act of war", as Bush said. Thus by this example you actually proves that terrorism=war.
Quote:
11 "innocent" former guantanamo bay inmates were discovered back in afghanistan...back with their old buddies...fighting against US troops...

No wonder. Started to fight against their former torturers. Brutality creates brutality.
Kind of »Man on Fire«

And HOW IN THE WORLD is your sentence able to proof that soldiers <> terrorists?


posted by knn
  



your never going to be convinced that soldiers are not terrorists... and i am never going to be convinced that they are

the end

posted by the anomaly
  



Goto page
1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Reply to topic
Goto page
1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next






RegisterRegister
Log inLog in
The time now is 1 December 2008, 18:38
php B.B.