|
04 Oct 05 - 01:42 PM (#1575624) Subject: BS: Human rights watch: Insurg.s' war crimes From: Wolfgang The report presents the arguments some insurgent groups and their supporters use to justify attacks on civilians. Most of these stem from the view that all means are legitimate to liberate Iraq from foreign forces; thus, anyone perceived as associated with the occupation is open to attack. But none of the arguments justify the attacks documented in this report, which are in clear violation of international humanitarian law. Not only should all insurgent groups in Iraq cease such attacks, but the political and religious leaders in Iraq and other countries who have expressed support for the insurgency should condemn the targeting of civilians, all acts that put civilians unnecessarily at risk and the mistreatment of those in custody. A Face and a Name. Civilian Victims of Insurgent Groups in Iraq Wolfgang |
|
04 Oct 05 - 01:55 PM (#1575639) Subject: RE: BS: Human rights watch: Insurg.s' war crimes From: McGrath of Harlow It is always wrong to pick out some types of terrorism to excuse, while condening others. It's just as bad when people seek to justify atrocities carried out by suicide bombers as when they try to justify atrocities carried out by military units or weaponry. Chomsky's definition strikes me as excellent: "Terrorism is the use of coercive means aimed at civilian populations in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims." And it is never to be tolerated or accepted. |
|
04 Oct 05 - 02:00 PM (#1575647) Subject: RE: BS: Human rights watch: Insurg.s' war crimes From: GUEST,rarelamb I agree with some parts of Chomsky's definition but not with the later. War is the use of force to achieve political objectives. Terrorism is simply a different form of warfare. Are terrorists worse than the allies fire bombing Dresden and Tokyo? Civilians are a legitimate target in war. |
|
04 Oct 05 - 02:19 PM (#1575673) Subject: RE: BS: Human rights watch: Insurg.s' war crimes From: beardedbruce rarelamb, I have to disagree with you, somewhat: The Geneva conventions http://www.genevaconventions.org/ make a clear distinction as to intentional targeting of civilians, and the loss of civilian life when attacking a military objective. They are NOT equivalant. Civilians are NOT a legitimate target under International law. Armed enemy combatants NOT in uniform ARE targets, and the protections of the Geneva Conventions do not apply to them. They may be executed summarily, as spies. |
|
04 Oct 05 - 02:32 PM (#1575698) Subject: RE: BS: Human rights watch: Insurg.s' war crimes From: GUEST,rarelamb I don't give any value to the Geneva Conventions. I do think that civilians are legitimate. The reality is that the US industry 'won' WWII. The civilians are complicit in the war effort. And especially considering the way the military's tooth to tail ratio has been changing , I don't think that one can justify only attacking 'combatants'. |
|
04 Oct 05 - 02:35 PM (#1575703) Subject: RE: BS: Human rights watch: Insurg.s' war crimes From: Ebbie Wow. |
|
04 Oct 05 - 02:46 PM (#1575710) Subject: RE: BS: Human rights watch: Insurg.s' war crimes From: beardedbruce The production facilities supporting armed forces ARE legitimate targets. If a city wants to be removed as a target, there are requirements for it to be declared an "open city", with rules as to access by the two sides , and what can be supplied by it to either combatant. |
|
04 Oct 05 - 02:59 PM (#1575722) Subject: RE: BS: Human rights watch: Insurg.s' war crimes From: GUEST,rarelamb I was unable to find 'open city'. But was able to find civilian: " A civilian is any person who does not belong to any of the following categories: members of the armed forces, militias or volunteer corps, organized resistance movements, and residents of an occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms. If there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 1)" I do not see mention of workers. This of course does not preclude it being mentioned elsewhere. But this still does not matter. If you are at war then you should commit yourself to total war. If this means that terror by way of bombing will shorten the war then by all means bomb away. |
|
04 Oct 05 - 03:28 PM (#1575742) Subject: RE: BS: Human rights watch: Insurg.s' war crimes From: McGrath of Harlow It's interesting how people insist on making exceptions. Different people make different exceptions. I suppose the rarelamb position, in which anything is justified if the aim is to achieve a good end, is logical. It is the one which terrorists of all varieties rely on. "If this means that terror by way of bombing will shorten the war then by all means bomb away." Bin Laden couldn't put it better. (Though surely the aim isn't to shorten the war, it's to win it. After all, it'd be the easiest thing in the world to shorten a war if that consideration did not have to be taken into account.) |
|
04 Oct 05 - 03:39 PM (#1575750) Subject: RE: BS: Human rights watch: Insurg.s' war crimes From: GUEST,rarelamb Now don't put words in my mouth :0 I do not believe in the broad concept of 'the ends justify the means'. What I do believe in is that if you are going to make the conscious decision to mobilize your population to kill a group of others, then it is in your interests to achieve victory as quickly and with as few losses for your population as possible. Killing civilian populations have worked to achieve political objectives. You can look back to the Khans who killed entire towns to be a lesson to other towns to not resist or Allies who firebombed, Americans in Linebacker II. In each of these cases they had some success in achieving their political objectives. IF I were OBL I would also engage in terrorism if I were commited to using war to achieve my political objectives. There really is no other rational options as he does not have the support of a state; which means he can not wage a conventional war. |
|
04 Oct 05 - 04:11 PM (#1575776) Subject: RE: BS: Human rights watch: Insurg.s' war crimes From: McGrath of Harlow "The end justifies the means" is a concept that has been very much distorted. What it originally meant was that, if you had a good aim in view, an action which was not in itself evil, would become a morally good action, whereas if you had a bad end in view, that same action would be morally bad. It was nothing to do with the idea that an intrinsically evil action could become a good action just because it was done to achieve a good end, though that is the way it has been distorted over the years. Rarelamb confirms what I wrote, expressing a position on this that is consistent. It is that the use of terror is justified, if it is a way of achieving a good end. It is the position which in practice dominated the 20th Century, and made it one of the bloodiest in history. As for the 21st Century, not much sign of any change there... |
|
04 Oct 05 - 06:20 PM (#1575912) Subject: RE: BS: Human rights watch: Insurg.s' war crimes From: Ebbie One of the things that greatly disturbed me was when Bush said that "this is the first war of the 21st century", and we were barely into it. It would have been lovely to wait, say, 15 years for the first one. Would have given me more hope for this old world. |
|
04 Oct 05 - 07:37 PM (#1575983) Subject: RE: BS: Human rights watch: Insurg.s' war crimes From: Peace "War is the use of force to achieve political objectives." You read Clauswitz? |
|
05 Oct 05 - 01:56 AM (#1576190) Subject: RE: BS: Human rights watch: Insurg.s' war crimes From: mack/misophist Almost right. "War is the persuit of politics bu other means." |
|
05 Oct 05 - 10:01 AM (#1576437) Subject: RE: BS: Human rights watch: Insurg.s' war crimes From: GUEST,rarelamb "It is that the use of terror is justified, if it is a way of achieving a good end. It is the position which in practice dominated the 20th Century, and made it one of the bloodiest in history" Yes, that is what I mean. Terror is not inherently evil or even bad, lest we forget that Hollows eve is around the corner. But the real killer in the 20th century was Socialism. Stalin had the miserable distinction of killing more of his own people than WWII. The Chinese killed over 30 million, Pol Pot has the distinction of killing off the highest percentage of his own people, and we can't forget the N Koreans starving millions of their people as well. Terrorism was but a drop in the bucket compared to socialism. |
|
05 Oct 05 - 06:25 PM (#1576795) Subject: RE: BS: Human rights watch: Insurg.s' war crimes From: McGrath of Harlow Terrorism isn't a separate ism, it's a tool used by all kinds of people for all kinds of reasons. And whatever the people and whatever the reapons it corrupts and ultimately destroys them. |
|
05 Oct 05 - 10:19 PM (#1576888) Subject: RE: BS: Human rights watch: Insurg.s' war crimes From: Ron Davies Rare Lamb-- So Hitler's campaign of terror against the Poles was perfectly fine? I beg to differ. Not only was it perfect inhumanity--but it didn't work---strengthened the Poles' determination to resist. The only time terror works is if you are employing it against a foreign occcupier--you may raise the price of the occupation high enough so the invader will leave. Funny thing--this is exactly the plan against the "Coalition" forces in Iraq, enhanced by the unfair refusal of the Coalition foes to wear clothes that distinguish them from the supposed pro-democracy Iraqis. Oh sorry, I forgot the war is over--after all we celebrated the victory a few years ago. |
|
06 Oct 05 - 01:16 AM (#1576906) Subject: RE: BS: Human rights watch: Insurg.s' war crimes From: GUEST,Boab Factual reporting on a "war aginst terror" can be uncomfortable for "anti-terrorists". Did any one else notice the report on BBC very recently in which hospital authorities in a "terrorist haven " in NW. Iraq reported eleven deaths due to US bombing , "three of whom were children". For some strange reason the words in quotes were changed after a few hours to "ambulance driver". Judicious editing? |
|
06 Oct 05 - 10:40 PM (#1577689) Subject: RE: BS: Human rights watch: Insurg.s' war crimes From: Teribus Peace - 04 Oct 05 - 07:37 PM "War is the use of force to achieve political objectives." You read Clauswitz? mack/misophist - 05 Oct 05 - 01:56 AM Almost right. "War is the persuit of politics bu other means." Both almost right according to the author: " War is the continuance of policy by other means." |
|
06 Oct 05 - 10:45 PM (#1577693) Subject: RE: BS: Human rights watch: Insurg.s' war crimes From: GUEST,Richard H http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/051805_world_stories.shtml Lest we forget... Not many years ago the US was heavily involved in terrorist acts against civilians. On October 6, 1976, CIA-backed anti-Castro agents put a bomb on a commercial Cubana airline flight which blew up and killed the 73 on board shortly after it left Barbados. Apart from the crew, the aircraft was carrying the Cuban fencing team, some North Koreans and some Guyanese students. America has spared no effort over the years to protect the perpetrators. The alleged mastermind, Luis Posada Carriles, a former CIA agent, is wanted by Venezuela in connection with this incident. But a US judge has recently ruled he can't be extradited from America because he might be tortured in Venezuela. This must be a joke considering the US treatment of prisoners at Abu Graib and Guantanamo. And hasn't the US reportedly sent prisoners to be interrogated in countries which do practice torture? Most countries have probably done things in the past of which they aren't proud today. But when you have a chance to make amends and let the guilty face trial, and you don't, you can't expect the world to believe you're really against all forms of terrorism. |
|
06 Oct 05 - 11:17 PM (#1577697) Subject: RE: BS: Human rights watch: Insurg.s' war crimes From: Teribus GUEST,Richard H - 06 Oct 05 - 10:45 PM You are joking - aren't you? Now let me hear your arguements against why US courts for years have refused to extradite known IRA crimials? Or is it just a fashion thing with you. |