British Soldiers Targeted At Home [Archive]

Centurion1

01-03-2010, 21:22

I agree...

A bit suprised you would think snipers should be locked away though, thought you were pro-death?

seriously :brood: the snipers did a job. they didnt kill for sport or fun. they performed the duty they signed up for. they shot clearly identified insurgent targets.

the Taliban are pissed they shot their men?

yeah no freaking kidding im pissed whenever some fanatic explodes and kills my neighbor. doesn't mean im going to attempt to kidnap his family, chop his head off, burn his remains and hang them from my neighborhoods light poles.

get real, these mens families are being targeted and no matter who or what you are your family should never be brought into something like this.

Taliban: "hey you killed my fellow soldier. Im going to kill your family."

explain that logic.

Viking

01-03-2010, 21:43

Taliban: "hey you killed my fellow soldier. Im going to kill your family."

explain that logic.

Uhm, that's not going to take much.

Subotan

01-03-2010, 21:54

Not unexpected.

Kadagar_AV

01-03-2010, 22:32

seriously :brood: the snipers did a job. they didnt kill for sport or fun. they performed the duty they signed up for. they shot clearly identified insurgent targets.

the Taliban are pissed they shot their men?

yeah no freaking kidding im pissed whenever some fanatic explodes and kills my neighbor. doesn't mean im going to attempt to kidnap his family, chop his head off, burn his remains and hang them from my neighborhoods light poles.

get real, these mens families are being targeted and no matter who or what you are your family should never be brought into something like this.

Taliban: "hey you killed my fellow soldier. Im going to kill your family."

explain that logic.

explaining that logic...

you are in their country killing people, they go to your country killing people.

kudos to them for singling out snipers, who belong to the more disgusting type of troops.

I dont see the logical fail here. Elaborate, please.

HoreTore

01-03-2010, 22:52

Hah!

Great job, Al-Q!

Kralizec

01-03-2010, 22:59

That's not funny - and they didn't do a "good job" either, considering that they haven't actually succeeded yet.

explaining that logic...

you are in their country killing people, they go to your country killing people.

kudos to them for singling out snipers, who belong to the more disgusting type of troops.

I dont see the logical fail here. Elaborate, please.

They're not Afghans coming to Britain to kill soldiers. They're home-grown radicals who prey on soldiers (and apparently, their families) once they take out their uniform.

Why are snipers inherently disgusting?

Crazed Rabbit

01-03-2010, 23:21

Wow, I think I'm just going to add some people to my ignore list.

Never done that before.

Also; funny the government won't let the soldiers defend themselves with guns in their own homes.

CR

Hax

01-03-2010, 23:30

When did killing people actually solve something?

Viking

01-03-2010, 23:34

When did killing people actually solve something?

Quite often, actually. :laugh4:

Hax

01-03-2010, 23:39

They're not Afghans coming to Britain to kill soldiers. They're home-grown radicals who prey on soldiers (and apparently, their families) once they take out their uniform.

Why are snipers inherently disgusting?

In the eyes of the ex-government of Afghanistan, didn't the same go for the Northern Alliance?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-03-2010, 23:51

Wow, I think I'm just going to add some people to my ignore list.

Tell me about it. I'm too disgusted to reply to some of the asinine comments left here.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-04-2010, 00:46

Hah!

Great job, Al-Q!

You disgust me, really you do.

Uhm, that's not going to take much.

Killing combatants is one thing, killing non-combatants is something else. A (good) sniper kills cleanly, that is his job, these terrorists were planning to abduct and probably torture their targets.

There is a difference.

explaining that logic...

you are in their country killing people, they go to your country killing people.

kudos to them for singling out snipers, who belong to the more disgusting type of troops.

I dont see the logical fail here. Elaborate, please.

Maybe Snipers are murderers, but they are tasked to kill combatants in a war zone, usually, not to abduct men from their homes.

Beskar

01-04-2010, 00:50

I don't remember the army marching down the streets of my home-town.

caravel

01-04-2010, 00:53

the snipers did a job. they didnt kill for sport or fun.

they performed the duty they signed up for.
Job? Duty?

Major Robert Dump

01-04-2010, 01:22

Interesting turn of events. While it's not always classified here per se, a job in the military like sniping is something that is rarely advertised by the people who actually did it. Most people in the Army who say they are snipers are full of crap, and the ones who actually do it tend not to talk about it.

I wonder exactly how their names got out? Surly they werent blogging or talking to the press. If they wanted attention it sounds like their plan backfired. If the press outed them, then shame shame

Centurion1

01-04-2010, 02:05

this is ridiculous, no matter what those men did their families don't deserve to die.

Their job- snipe combatants and targets of oppurtunity
Their duty- execute said job.

why are snipers disgusting?

snipers are one of the more humane ways aof warfare. there are very select. there is no collateral. They kill relatively swiftly with such high powered weapons. Are they disgusting because tey kill from a distance. so do artillerymen and fighter pilots. Grow up its the 21st century we dont decapitate and disembowel our enemies anymore, except for your little terrorist friends.

Thermal

01-04-2010, 02:38

you are in their country killing people whilst being killed, they go to your country killing people whilst not being killed.

:bow:

@Horetore, If these were Norwegian soldiers I doubt this would get the same response from you. Shame on you :balloon2:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-04-2010, 02:50

:bow:

@Horetore, If these were Norwegian soldiers I doubt this would get the same response from you. Shame on you :balloon2:

Oh, I'm afraid he posted a topic about how disgusting Norwegian soldiers were a while back, under the guise of moaning about his country's arms-spending.

Thermal

01-04-2010, 02:56

Oh, I'm afraid he posted a topic about how disgusting Norwegian soldiers were a while back, under the guise of moaning about his country's arms-spending.

Oh... :speechless: :laugh4:

Mooks

01-04-2010, 03:02

Snipers arent just any soldier, theyre insane. The kind of training they go through and the amount of skill any one of them has, makes them some of the best soldiers in the world.

Also; funny the government won't let the soldiers defend themselves with guns in their own homes.

CR

British people are funny like that.

miotas

01-04-2010, 04:24

Taliban: "hey you killed my fellow soldier. Im going to kill your family."

explain that logic.

All the article says is that Al-Qaeda planned to kill a soldier but were stopped. The rest is speculation that maybe the snipers might be targeted because their names got out and a threat letter was sent to one of the snipers.

Tellos Athenaios

01-04-2010, 05:31

I wonder exactly how their names got out? Surly they werent blogging or talking to the press. If they wanted attention it sounds like their plan backfired. If the press outed them, then shame shame

Well there have been (partially sponsored by various parties involved) ‘accounts’ from journalists following some units around in Afghanistan. I wouldn't be surprised if (a) people did mention the names of the snipers and some other personal details/circumstances at those times; and (b) if journalists did indeed (explicitly) follow snipers around. For the latter part because (b) ensures a combination of relative safety yet does give a ‘front-line’ angle to the story.

Also why is it funny that one citizen is not treated differently from other citizens and must abide by the same law? Asinine indeed.

Megas Methuselah

01-04-2010, 06:46

this is ridiculous, no matter what those men did their families don't deserve to die.

If you came over to my country and shot up my people, I would do all that I can to ensure harm to you and yours.

Major Robert Dump

01-04-2010, 07:12

Well there have been (partially sponsored by various parties involved) ‘accounts’ from journalists following some units around in Afghanistan. I wouldn't be surprised if (a) people did mention the names of the snipers and some other personal details/circumstances at those times; and (b) if journalists did indeed (explicitly) follow snipers around. For the latter part because (b) ensures a combination of relative safety yet does give a ‘front-line’ angle to the story.

Also why is it funny that one citizen is not treated differently from other citizens and must abide by the same law? Asinine indeed.

Not sure how much of this is directed at me, but let me clarify my comments from earlier.

The people I know who are snipers, special ops, SAR, etc, do not openly advertise their jobs to joe public because the very nature of what they do makes them and their families targets from both our enemies, political opponents and people-looking-to-make-a-point-in general. Much for the same reason CIA agents don't tell their entire community what they are and what they do. IT's common sense.

At the same time, unless said person/agent was involved in something highly questionable under the law, it is very irresponsible for a journalist/friend/colleague to divulge their role due to the fact that it is simply just irresponsible and, some may argue, unpatriotic to do so and definitely dangerous to them and their family. So yes, people who do jobs like that should fall under different rules. I'm not saying rules in the context of laws or special protections, but FFS, if u are a jouranlist covering a sniper in a war dont put his name in the papers. Jesus.

But based on the sheer number of soldiers who claimed to be snipers when they weren't (its a glamorous job), I am also reserving my conclusions to the fact that they may have advertised their roles themselves. In that case, I don't think it makes them or their families deserve what happened, but I do think it resounds that they lacked common sense in divulging their duties and they may want to look at themselves a little while assigning blame. Enemies that cross borders, dissimation of info, this is nothing new, don't advertise your role if it had significant impact on vs the enemy.

BTW, most "snipers" I have met ended up being riflemen in infantry squads...a job that certainly deserved respect, but not a sniper in the intended sense and not one who went through sniper school. I have a feeling had they been bona fide snipers, they would not have had that "sniper" bumper sticker on their pickup. Kind of like an FBI guy wearing a shirt that says UNDERCOVER.

Regardless, the people who are responsible for this need to be strung up for a long time, treated as traitors if they are citizens, and at the least deported. Snipers are an acceptable act of war vs enemies in the battlefield, going after their families out of theater is not

spmetla

01-04-2010, 08:05

It's a shame that British soldiers are being targeted at home, certainly won't help ease PTSD when the threat follows to what used to be a safe place. Not too surprising that it happens, though I just hope that the law enforcement there will be able to prevent any successful attacks.

As for some of the comments around here, how come such avowed pacifists give kudos to acts of aggression in this case? If you're going to condemn soldiers for fighting on behalf of their nation's interests why is it fine for religious fanatics or terrorists to do the same?

HoreTore

01-04-2010, 08:39

You disgust me, really you do.

Please explain why.

This past year or so, I've seen Al-Q and the taliban shift their focus from killing innocent civillians to legitimate military targets. This is another example of this trend. Please, do explain why it's a bad thing that they're killing enemy soldiers instead of civilians.

these terrorists were planning to abduct and probably torture their targets.

...They were going to send them to Gitmo or Abu Ghraib? :beam:

Husar

01-04-2010, 09:16

Didn't the Iraqis have some glorified sniper as well who the US tried to catch in his home country?
But yeah, a sniper is generally about as disgusting today as an archer or crossbowman was to a medieval knight.
On the other hand it's a bit weird to say that targeting people at home is disgusting when that is exactly what you're doing to the other people, too.
It's still scary and I hope it can be prevented though.

HoreTore

01-04-2010, 09:33

@Horetore, If these were Norwegian soldiers I doubt this would get the same response from you. Shame on you :balloon2:

Are you accusing me of being a nationalist bigot? If so, you're barking up the wrong tree, my friend....

On the other hand it's a bit weird to say that targeting people at home is disgusting when that is exactly what you're doing to the other people, too.

Indeed! What would happen if OBL declared that he was retiring as a terrorist leader, and was now going home to live peacefully as a civillian? Would he be left alone? I think not. I don't see why the same shouldn't apply to our soldiers.

War is a fight to the death, people. As long as your enemy still lives, there's a chance of you dying. You can't retire from war. Deaths are rarely forgiven, and never forgotten. Thinking otherwise is naive beyond reason.

Anyway, you want disgusting? I'll give you disgusting... The norwegian camp in Afghanistan was attacked on new years eve, and footage taken by the soldiers was shown on the news. At one point, a grenade detonates over an enemy position, and a soldier screams "lekkert!"(beautiful!)... The deaths or, at best, mutilation of another human being was....beautiful...

That was one psycho taking too much pleasure from killing, methinks.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-04-2010, 09:47

If you came over to my country and shot up my people, I would do all that I can to ensure harm to you and yours.

So you advocate the murder of civilian women and children based on their association with soldiers? soldiering is a proffession, albeit a sometimes distastful one, it is not an excuse to reak vengance apon non-combatants.

Please explain why.

:daisy:

HoreTore

01-04-2010, 09:54

:daisy:

Yeah..........

rory_20_uk

01-04-2010, 11:01

Surely everyone else is equaly a valid target by this... logic as they are a part of society.

It used to be viewed that Nations fought, with soldiers being tools of the state, with no personal attachment to the conflict. Thus when the war ends all are at peace again.

If war is a fight to the death, it should be fought as such. E.G. Afghanistan should be systemically bombed with VX gas. Add to the list Yemen and Somalia. Women can be soldiers, children grow up. Killing everyone is the only solution.

~:smoking:

Fragony

01-04-2010, 11:11

Not really surprised by this

Louis VI the Fat

01-04-2010, 11:13

:cheerleader: Go HoreTore! :cheerleader:

Afghanis are followed home. Abducted, tortured, killed. Their relatives turned into collateral damage. From an Aghani point of view, there is no qualitative difference between a Briton killing Afghanistan fighters in Afghanistan, or in Pakistani killing British fighters in Britain.

It all depends on who’s side you're on, more than whether you approve of the method or not. The British use Yemeni citizens to track down and abduct Yemeni fighters who've fought in Afghanistan, to abduct them from their homes upon return.

I don't have any qualms about the method. I do however prefer the UK over the Taleban, so I'll applaud the British over AQ and the Taleban.

~~-~~-~~-<<oOo>>-~~-~~-~~

I've got some food for thought for ypou as well, HT. Just why does the UK employ sniping as a strategy? A major reason is that it is discriminatory, it kills only the intented target.

Army returns to an old tactic to defeat resurgent Taliban: sniping

As concern mounts over the number of civilian casualties caused by air strikes in Afghanistan, the army is switching tactics.

Sniping's tactical comeback is facilitated by mounting concern over the number of civilian casualties in southern Afghanistan caused by air strikes. Fears over the risk of collateral damage from jets are bolstered by field reports indicating that snipers are the military (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/military)'s most cost-effective, discriminating fighting machine in Helmand.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/15/army-taliban-sniping

Sniping has a psychological effect. Part of the reason why it should be snipers who are targeted back home.
Snipers are targeted, but not pilots, even though both use the tactic of staying out of range of return fire. Sniping is considered close to terrorism. It certainly instills fear, and must be quite frustrating to be on the receiving end.
Sniping is a form of psychological warfare. Shots from an invisible source can, according to the Ministry of Defence, induce terror in advancing forces; even tank commanders cower inside from an unseen but precise foe.

Cost-effective too!
Another factor driving the resurgence of sniping is cost-effectiveness. During the Vietnam war, the average number of rounds expended per kill with M-16 rifles was 50,000.
By contrast, snipers averaged 1.3 bullets per kill, and defence officials estimate that contemporary trends are likely to mirror the ratios recorded in Indochina.
Each of the 8.59mm bullets used by UK snipers in southern Afghanistan costs about £20, compared to a single projectile from the Javelin anti-tank missile, which costs £70,000.

Hax

01-04-2010, 11:13

Killing everyone is the only solution.

Make the world a better place, start with yourself ~

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-04-2010, 11:20

Louis VI the Fat

01-04-2010, 11:27

Nonsense, we abhor the tactic in our own forcesWhat, Britain does not use native citizens of, say, Somalia, Yemen and Afghanistan to apprehend fighters from their homes? Britain has only ever killed enemy fighters on open battlefields in the past decade? Are you quite sure about that...? :sweatdrop:

Louis VI the Fat

01-04-2010, 11:35

Also; funny the government won't let the soldiers defend themselves with guns in their own homes.

CRAnd then what? Have private AQ and UK combatants battle it out in British streets? Turn Glasgow into a place of open street violence, divided into sectarian neighbourhoods and destined for destitution?

(Wait hang on...

Erm...Turn London or York into a place of endemic sectarian violence etc?)

rajpoot

01-04-2010, 11:44

What Louis said in his first post is more or less what I think.
It all really is a matter of which side does one sympathies with more.

Then again, killing civilians and soldiers out of uniform, no matter who does it, is wrong.....this is what they call a war crime don't they?

On another point if the snipers killed a Al-Q leader in Afghanistan, it was because he was fighting against them at that time. The soldiers in UK were not fighting...they were coming home. I think there's a fine line between the two....killing someone who's fighting against you, or killing someone who might or was fight against you.

On a different note, what amazes me most is that there actually are Al-Q cells in UK itself? People who directly support them?! I thought that it was just us who had active terrorist cells and infiltrators in our country......

Subotan

01-04-2010, 11:58

British people are funny like that.
You mean sensible.

Andres

01-04-2010, 11:59

Fragony

01-04-2010, 12:14

Media is also to blame for making him a high profile target

Hax

01-04-2010, 12:18

Furunculus

01-04-2010, 12:31

snipers do a legitimate job, very well.

these wonderful british 'citizens' who wish to murder their families need to be prosecuted to the max.

Fragony

01-04-2010, 12:33

snipers do a legitimate job, very well.

these wonderful british 'citizens' who wish to murder their families need to be prosecuted to the max.

Sure but I can understand their logic, sniping is psychological warfare, and so is this, we are at war with terrorism not Afghanistan. Also, if we know of a Taliban leader sitting with his family we will shell it anyway.

Viking

01-04-2010, 12:49

Killing combatants is one thing, killing non-combatants is something else. A (good) sniper kills cleanly, that is his job, these terrorists were planning to abduct and probably torture their targets.

There is a difference.

The logic is that it reduces morale and thus weakens the enemy if they do this. That's the logic; and I am not sure what exactly you are referring to.

Kralizec

01-04-2010, 12:53

Afghanis are followed home. Abducted, tortured, killed. Their relatives turned into collateral damage. From an Aghani point of view, there is no qualitative difference between a Briton killing Afghanistan fighters in Afghanistan, or in Pakistani killing British fighters in Britain.

It all depends on who’s side you're on, more than whether you approve of the method or not. The British use Yemeni citizens to track down and abduct Yemeni fighters who've fought in Afghanistan, to abduct them from their homes upon return.

I don't have any qualms about the method. I do however prefer the UK over the Taleban, so I'll applaud the British over AQ and the Taleban.

The way I see it...when you're carrying a weapon, and maybe wearing a uniform, you're a legitimate target for the enemy. You can blame the Taliban for a lot of things, but not for killing active combatants in a warzone. It annoys me when the words "insurgent" and "terrorist" are used as if they're synonyms. It also annoys me when an attack on soldiers in Afghanistan is immediately dismissed as "cowardly" by politicians.

However, when a British person murders his own neighbour, because that neighbour served in a war wich he disagrees with, that Brit is not an insurgent, not a participant in a war, but a domestic terrorist. I haven't seen any of the Taliban fanboys (note: not you, Louis) put forward a good argument why such a person should be treated as equal to a soldier.

Louis VI the Fat

01-04-2010, 12:59

Media is also to blame for making him a high profile targetThe evil media again...?

Meet UK Sniper, L/Cpl Teddy Reucker. Here in action in Helmand, Afghanistan.

Photo and information courtesy of the British Ministry of Defense.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/%3Ca%20href=https://img695.imageshack.us/i/teddyreucker.jpg/%20target=_blank%3E[IMG]https://img695.imageshack.us/img695/1633/teddyreucker.jpghttps://img695.imageshack.us/img695/1633/teddyreucker.jpg

Smoking a cigarette after a shot:

https://img686.imageshack.us/img686/2069/teddyfromsuffolk.jpg

I'll spare you Teddy Reucker's Suffolk home adress and telephone number.

It took me two minutes to look him up. In half an hour, I'd know where he was stationed and what actions he partook in.

Fragony

01-04-2010, 13:02

The evil media again...?

In a different article it says that he was made a hero for getting so many kills, of course they will come for him, pretty stupid.

edit, what weapon is he using, doesn't look like a very heavy hitter

miotas

01-04-2010, 13:04

Does everyone have another source that hasn't been posted yet? If so could it please be posted. The only thing the article says for certain is that a small group was going to kill a soldier, there was no mention of people trying to murder the sniper's families.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-04-2010, 13:18

What, Britain does not use native citizens of, say, Somalia, Yemen and Afghanistan to apprehend fighters from their homes? Britain has only ever killed enemy fighters on open battlefields in the past decade? Are you quite sure about that...? :sweatdrop:

"We" being the populace, and "abhor" not meaning "we'd never do that". In Britain such tactics are always held up as disgusting, even if occasionally excused. Therefore, for me to lable the tactic as abhorant is consistant.

The logic is that it reduces morale and thus weakens the enemy if they do this. That's the logic; and I am not sure what exactly you are referring to.

A sniper elimates a (usually) active military target, a soldier at home with his children is not a military target. Snipers also work as uniformed soldiers, and are identifiable as such.

The way I see it...when you're carrying a weapon, and maybe wearing a uniform, you're a legitimate target for the enemy. You can blame the Taliban for a lot of things, but not for killing active combatants in a warzone. It annoys me when the words "insurgent" and "terrorist" are used as if they're synonyms. It also annoys me when an attack on soldiers in Afghanistan is immediately dismissed as "cowardly" by politicians.

However, when a British person murders his own neighbour, because that neighbour served in a war wich he disagrees with, that Brit is not an insurgent, not a participant in a war, but a domestic terrorist. I haven't seen any of the Taliban fanboys (note: not you, Louis) put forward a good argument why such a person should be treated as equal to a soldier.

I tend to agree with this. I can respect a man who stands up and dies for his country, I don't have a lot of time for men who strip on explosive vests onto themselves, or someone else, and flip the swich in a crowded market.

Tellos Athenaios

01-04-2010, 13:22

Not sure how much of this is directed at me, but let me clarify my comments from earlier.

Just the first paragraph. IOW: do not think your post was asinine; on the contrary I find it a reasonable question to ask.

The people I know who are snipers, special ops, SAR, etc, do not openly advertise their jobs to joe public because the very nature of what they do makes them and their families targets from both our enemies, political opponents and people-looking-to-make-a-point-in general. Much for the same reason CIA agents don't tell their entire community what they are and what they do. IT's common sense.

At the same time, unless said person/agent was involved in something highly questionable under the law, it is very irresponsible for a journalist/friend/colleague to divulge their role due to the fact that it is simply just irresponsible and, some may argue, unpatriotic to do so and definitely dangerous to them and their family. So yes, people who do jobs like that should fall under different rules. I'm not saying rules in the context of laws or special protections, but FFS, if u are a jouranlist covering a sniper in a war dont put his name in the papers. Jesus.

Google query: Afghanistan account sniper
Result contains saucy finds:
http://www.snipercountry.com/articles/killingshot_2430metres.asp

Not too many personal circumstances but still: age, rank, regiment, and ‘from’ details... Names are given also, but you are led to believe these must be anonimised to protect the people in this article for those are consistently wrapped in double quotes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1206553/British-sniper-tells-moment-shot-Taliban-commander--TWO-KILOMETRES-away.html

Now this one. Saucy, I say. Name, age, rank, regiment, ‘from’, wife's name, son's name, son's age, wife's home address, personal picture... ? Might as well throw in his phone number... ?
Plus additional bonus in the details of the colleague: name, rank, regiment, age, ‘from’ details. This one, incidentally, appears to be from Glasgow. Does one and one make two? :smash:

Additional significant excerpt: “camped on the roof of a shop for three days”. Do you think, as do I, that the shop owners may have been interrogated regarding the man that camped on their roof by now?

Andres

01-04-2010, 13:22

I tend to agree with this. I can respect a man who stands up and dies for his country, I don't have a lot of time for men who strip on explosive vests onto themselves, or someone else, and flip the swich in a crowded market.

How about the man who flies in an expensive jet, drops a bomb on a "military target" and kills many civilians as "collateral damage"? How much time and respect do you have for him?

johnhughthom

01-04-2010, 13:26

How about the man who flies in an expensive jet, drops a bomb on a "military target" and kills many civilians as "collateral damage"? How much time and respect do you have for him?

He isn't the person who decides if that is a legitimate military target or not though.

Wishazu

01-04-2010, 13:28

Our Soldiers = Hero`s.

There Soldiers = Cowards.

Thats simple propaganda, everyone has been doing that since war began back in the dawn of time.

I personally feel that the Snipers themselves are Hero`s, they dont drop bombs that kill and maim non-combatants, they are clinical.

Anyone who supports terrorists, in any kind of way needs their heads looking at. I think the AL-Q sympathisers will look much better when British soldiers start beheading captured insurgents or Afghan reporters etc. and posting it on youtube.

Andres

01-04-2010, 13:31

He isn't the person who decides if that is a legitimate military target or not though.

I see, "just following orders" makes it all perfectly acceptable and makes the guy dropping the bomb "just a soldier doing his duty".

The guy fighting for the side which can't afford expensive jets is of course "a terrorist".

I think the relatives of the victims of both men don't care much about that distinction.

Tellos Athenaios

01-04-2010, 13:35

Media is also to blame for making him a high profile target

His superiors in the MoD PR department are to blame. Those journalists did largely their job: to publicise news and its details; the same cannot be said for the MoD PR department whose job it is to keep sensitive details out of the media and do damage control.

Bloody hell, even in the disastrous PR departments of the Dutch MoD (shower the journalists in lost USB sticks) they have the sense to contact media and request self-censorship w.r.t. ‘sensitive details’ that can locate or identify such men. In fact the Dutch MoD wanted to proofread articles about the war to ensure this... :juggle:

Kralizec

01-04-2010, 13:37

What I don't understand is how one can be outraged about this event but not about the killing of Afghan people in Afghanistan.

Outraged by ISAF troops killing Afghans, or by Afghans killing Afghans?

While I don't think that US/ISAF and national Afghan troops are doing enough so prevent civilian casualties, the majority of civilian deaths are directly caused by Taliban fighters and other anti-government groups. Don't take my word for it, listen to Amnesty international (http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/afghanistan-more-us-troops-must-not-harm-afghan-civilians-20091202).
I'd rather not complicate the topic further by discussing how US/ISAF are waging this war. But regardless, the pre-2001 Afghan government has herself to blame for being invaded in the first place. And if it hadn't been invaded, Afghanistan would still have been a hellhole with rampant human rights abuses and civilian deaths. I reject the notion that the west somehow messed Afghanistan up.

"War = Bad" is a cliché.

Andres

01-04-2010, 13:40

Outraged by ISAF troops killing Afghans, or by Afghans killing Afghans?

How about being outraged by both?

"War = Bad" is a cliché.

It's also the truth and nothing but the truth.

Tell me, how could war be a good thing?

johnhughthom

01-04-2010, 13:41

I see, "just following orders" makes it all perfectly acceptable and makes the guy dropping the bomb "just a soldier doing his duty".

In my opinion, yes. Whether his superiors, or the intelligence officers advising them, should be tried for war crimes when civilian targets are hit is another matter.

Andres

01-04-2010, 13:43

In my opinion, yes. Whether his superiors, or the intelligence officers advising them, should be tried for war crimes when civilian targets are hit is another matter.

What about the superior of the guy with the explosives? I take it he deserves a fair trial too?

johnhughthom

01-04-2010, 13:45

What about the superior of the guy with the explosives? I take it he deserves a fair trial too?

You mean the terrorist leaders? Of course they do.

Andres

01-04-2010, 13:47

You mean the terrorist leaders? Of course they do.

Yes, those.

About your terminology, the superiors of the guys with the jets are also terrorist leaders?

johnhughthom

01-04-2010, 13:51

I don't really understand your point Andres. In saying terrorist leaders I was simply using the common terminology to distinguish the two sides, I wasn't giving one side legitimacy over the other.

Kralizec

01-04-2010, 13:55

How about being outraged by both?

It's also the truth and nothing but the truth.

Tell me, how could war be a good thing?

Pacifism is awesome in theory. But for a country it's not worth pursuing if his neighbour is about to invade him.
War is a fact of life, sadly. Most people know this and would not argue that fighting a war is unjustifyable regardless of circumstances. That's why "War = Bad" is a cliché.

Andres

01-04-2010, 13:57

I don't really understand your point Andres. In saying terrorist leaders I was simply using the common terminology to distinguish the two sides, I wasn't giving one side legitimacy over the other.

Ah, but I don't see the point in distinguishing.

It are all people killing other people.

Subotan

01-04-2010, 14:10

This is wrong and cannot be justified.

Killing people in Afghanistan is also wrong and cannot be justified.

The organised mass killing of people aka war cannot be justified.

What I don't understand is how one can be outraged about this event but not about the killing of Afghan people in Afghanistan.

I'm in total agreement here. It's sickening watching the media wail over how one more British volunteer soldier has died in Afghanistan, whilst nothing is mentioned about the unknown number of Afghans who are killed by British soldiers. They have parents too who will never see their boys come home to play footie in the field outside their house. Of course, the extremists mentioned in the article are probably criminals and should have the full force of the British justice system brought down upon them. But that doesn't mean that the soldiers this sniper were criminals, just as it turned out that a large proportion of the insurgents fighting Americans in Iraq weren't either.

Viking

01-04-2010, 14:11

A sniper elimates a (usually) active military target, a soldier at home with his children is not a military target. Snipers also work as uniformed soldiers, and are identifiable as such.

Yes, yes; but you have to put my first post in its context: why target soldiers at home? That is pretty self-explanatory, thus the comment.

The nukes of WW2 followed in the same vein - attacks at home to crush the morale.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-04-2010, 14:25

How about the man who flies in an expensive jet, drops a bomb on a "military target" and kills many civilians as "collateral damage"? How much time and respect do you have for him?

A fair bit, because it is, as you point out, "collataral damage", however if he's an incompetant who hit the wrong building; that's a different matter.

johnhughthom

01-04-2010, 14:25

Ah, but I don't see the point in distinguishing.

The difference is accountability, the pilot dropping the bombs has to believe those giving him the orders are accountable to their superiors, those superiors to the government, the government to the people. I understand this doesn't really happen, but that's not the soldiers fault. Who is the terrorist leader ordering the bomber accountable to? Allah doesn't count in my opinion.

rory_20_uk

01-04-2010, 14:26

"War crimes" almost always are caused by the loosing side. All dead enemy leaders are of course criminals as they are the enemy and therefore evil in any case; sticking on some crimes after death helps to ensure a simple narrative.

Bomber Harris? Hero. Bombing Dresden was of course required, as it was pretty... So the bombing wings were targeted to cause civilian deaths - but in a heroic manner.
The leader the the Japanese Navy committed a grevious warcrime - beating the American Navy, and hence was hung.
Concentration guards were similarly accountable, as are military prison guards. If no food is arriving for the prisoners, who'se fault is that?

Viking, It is "morale" but an interesting Freudian slip there ~;)

Most people place far greater value on the lives of those in their country compared to the lives of others. Many do this conciously, many others might not be aware they're doing it.

~:smoking:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-04-2010, 14:28

Yes, yes; but you have to put my first post in its context: why target soldiers at home? That is pretty self-explanatory, thus the comment.

The nukes of WW2 followed in the same vein - attacks at home to crush the moral.

The WW2 nukes were unique though, their puropse was to stop a war we were winning, but only in blood-soaked inches. They were dropped by Americans on Japan.

This is British men trying to kill individuals to stop a war Afgan Rebels are soundly loosing.

caravel

01-04-2010, 14:39

This is British men trying to kill individuals to stop a war Afgan Rebels are soundly loosing.
Eh? So more killing ends a war? I'm afraid not, certainly not in this case. There is also the small matter that the British and others should not even be in Afghanistan anyway.

Kralizec

01-04-2010, 14:52

There is also the small matter that the British and others should not even be in Afghanistan anyway.

How's that?

Banquo's Ghost

01-04-2010, 15:48

How's that?

Not out.

Sorry. I'll get my coat. :creep:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-04-2010, 16:37

Eh? So more killing ends a war? I'm afraid not, certainly not in this case. There is also the small matter that the British and others should not even be in Afghanistan anyway.

Generally, the side better at killing wins through attrition, given that the casualties have had a ration of between 10:1 and 100:1 in favour of the coalition, and the Taleban is not that popular anywhere really unless the Coalition starts stomping around, we're probably going to win.

Of course, the Coalition has done too much stomping at certain times, far too much, and the politicians might decide to just pack up and leave. Ultimately though, this isn't a war we can loose unless we decide to leave.

caravel

01-04-2010, 16:42

Generally, the side better at killing wins through attrition, given that the casualties have had a ration of between 10:1 and 100:1 in favour of the coalition, and the Taleban is not that popular anywhere really unless the Coalition starts stomping around, we're probably going to win.

Of course, the Coalition has done too much stomping at certain times, far too much, and the politicians might decide to just pack up and leave. Ultimately though, this isn't a war we can loose unless we decide to leave.
I'm afraid it's currently been going on since 2001 and there is no end in site. The Taliban, far from being beaten have resurged and are now a problem in Pakistan as well. Before this, the Russians had a crack at it as well, with disastrous results. It's a war that can't be won in the conventional way, if at all and while the occupation persists, so will the terrorist acts.

Louis VI the Fat

01-04-2010, 16:43

Not out.That's one wicket pun. :2thumbsup:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-04-2010, 17:22

I'm afraid it's currently been going on since 2001 and there is no end in site. The Taliban, far from being beaten have resurged and are now a problem in Pakistan as well. Before this, the Russians had a crack at it as well, with disastrous results. It's a war that can't be won in the conventional way, if at all and while the occupation persists, so will the terrorist acts.

That's the big secret. Just like Vietnam, another winnable war, the issue is not the tactical or strategic situation; but the will to win.

Banquo's Ghost

01-04-2010, 18:02

That's one wicket pun. :2thumbsup:

Damn. I thought I might have stumped you.

Beskar

01-04-2010, 18:06

Damn. I thought I might have stumped you.

Admittedly, I thought it was a different pun at first.

"Not out." meaning:
- The troll has been put back away, he wasn't out, ignore his comment.
- The soldiers are 'not out' of Afghanistan.
- Ignore the comment, it isn't out in the open.

HoreTore

01-04-2010, 20:04

Then again, killing civilians and soldiers out of uniform, no matter who does it, is wrong.....this is what they call a war crime don't they?

So.... OBL can decide to retire, go home and he won't be touched by NATO forces then?

Anyone who supports terrorists, in any kind of way needs their heads looking at. I think the AL-Q sympathisers will look much better when British soldiers start beheading captured insurgents or Afghan reporters etc. and posting it on youtube.

I don't "sympathize with al qaida". But I am happy when they seem to be turning their actions away from civilian targets, and onto legitimate military targets. Al Qaida has far from infinite resources; every attack on soldiers means one less attack on innocent civilians.

I've got some food for thought for ypou as well, HT.

Aimed at the wrong person, Louis; I wasn't criticizing snipers in particular ~;)

Kadagar_AV

01-04-2010, 20:08

So.... OBL can decide to retire, go home and he won't be touched by NATO forces then?

No no HoreTore, you must remember that there is a difference between US and THEM... WE are the good guys, THEY are the bad guys. No matter what.

What about this is it that you just dont get?

Megas Methuselah

01-04-2010, 20:38

So you advocate the murder of civilian women and children based on their association with soldiers? soldiering is a proffession, albeit a sometimes distastful one, it is not an excuse to reak vengance apon non-combatants.

If I were a member of the Taliban, it's what I would do. People don't like it? Well, too bad. It's the consequences of war.

This is wrong and cannot be justified.

Killing people in Afghanistan is also wrong and cannot be justified.

The organised mass killing of people aka war cannot be justified.

What I don't understand is how one can be outraged about this event but not about the killing of Afghan people in Afghanistan.

Very well said.

Major Robert Dump

01-04-2010, 20:45

Why in the hell is the UK Defense Ministry releasing so much information about one of their snipers? That is ridiculous. From a PR-sylized-make-him-a-hero point of view it makes perfect sense if for the propoganda/recruitment machine. But it defies all common sense on all other fronts, especially considering the enemy and their known tactics.

And now they have to devote manpower and resources to protect him.

Kralizec

01-04-2010, 20:56

Ideally, OBL would be arrested and tried in a court.
The analogy is flawed on many levels. OBL can't be compared to a lowly grunt - if we'd have to compare, the only ones would be Bush, Blair and other politicians directly involved. OBL has dedicated his life to civilians specifically, while soldiers target combatants - and snipers tend to cause much less unintended civilian deaths than other troops.
If we're to reverse the tactic described in the article, we'd have to imagine western troops entering a house, finding an unarmed insurgent and executing him in cold blood. I'm no expert on military rules of conduct, but I'm pretty sure soldiers are not allowed to do this :rolleyes:

If I were a member of the Taliban, it's what I would do. People don't like it? Well, too bad. It's the consequences of war.

The people arrested for the plot mentioned in the article are not Taliban. They're not even Afghans. I know that you have an axe to grind with every white, "European" person on the planet but in the future you ought to make sure you know what you're talking about before you end up looking like an idiot :juggle2:

HoreTore

01-04-2010, 21:03

Ideally, OBL would be arrested and tried in a court.
The analogy is flawed on many levels. OBL can't be compared to a lowly grunt - if we'd have to compare, the only ones would be Bush, Blair and other politicians directly involved. OBL has dedicated his life to civilians specifically, while soldiers target combatants - and snipers tend to cause much less unintended civilian deaths than other troops.

I thought it was obvious that "OBL" was used as a term for Al-Qaida and Taliban soldiers in general, not just the one man.

If we're to reverse the tactic described in the article, we'd have to imagine western troops entering a house, finding an unarmed insurgent and executing him in cold blood. I'm no expert on military rules of conduct, but I'm pretty sure soldiers are not allowed to do this :rolleyes:

No, if we are to reverse to tactic described in the article, we'd have to imagine western troops entering a house, finding an unarmed insurgent and arresting(or abduct, if you prefer) him and sending him to Gitmo.

And we do that.

Subotan

01-04-2010, 21:17

HoreTore

01-04-2010, 21:33

Along with various children.

Why?

Take the attack on Kurt Westergaard, for example. The terrorist(or whatever) was going for him, and while he was hiding in a safety room, his 5-year old granddaughter was sitting in the living room with the terrorist, and what happened? Nothing at all, the terrorist didn't touch her, he was only going after Westergaard.

Why should we believe that an action against a british sniper would be any different?

Subotan

01-04-2010, 21:34

I was referring to the fact that there are minors in Guantamno Bay.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-04-2010, 21:45

If I were a member of the Taliban, it's what I would do. People don't like it? Well, too bad. It's the consequences of war.

You can't fight hatred with hatred; and advocating it is more than a little childish. The deliberate murder of children is not a "consequence of war".

Fragony

01-04-2010, 21:48

Why should we believe that an action against a british sniper would be any different?

There is something to say for this, if you are going to use terms such as a global war on terrorism why wouldn't he be a legitimate target. Sniping is taking out unsuspecting targets no.

Kralizec

01-04-2010, 22:10

No, if we are to reverse to tactic described in the article, we'd have to imagine western troops entering a house, finding an unarmed insurgent and arresting(or abduct, if you prefer) him and sending him to Gitmo.

And we do that.

Touche.

Insurgents who are captured after fighting with soldiers should be considered prisoners of war instead of "illegal combatants". I don't recall however that you ever defended Gitmo or Abu Graib by saying "it's war, what do you expect" as vehemently as you do here.

And as I asked earlier, why should the arrested people mentioned in the article be considered "legitimate" combatants? They're British citizens of Pakistani descent. I can only imagine the trials that go on in HoreToreland...

Judge: "You admit to having tried/abduct to kill person X in his own house. Do you have anyting else to say?"
Suspect: "Well, I know he was a soldier who served in Afghanistan."
Judge: "Yes, and?"
Suspect: "I'm rooting for the other team, so..."
Judge: "Okay, you got me there. You're free to go"

Vladimir

01-04-2010, 22:15

Touche.

Touche? No. Tacky.

This sniper guy played by the rules. The insurgent-types, regardless of age, don't. Therefore sniper guy is entitled to certain protections the insurgent-types don't get.

The moral equivalence in this thread is revolting. :thumbsdown:

seireikhaan

01-04-2010, 22:21

Kralizec

01-04-2010, 22:23

Playing by the rules? That depends on what the insurgent has done. An insurgent is not necessarily a terrorist.

Soldiers are legitimate targets in war. Civilians are not, obviously. The point is that some captured Taliban fighters were denied even the most basic POW rights because they're not in the habit of wearing uniforms and other such BS reasons. That sort of logic would mean that you can do whatever the hell you like with captured guerilla fighters, even if there's absolutely no evidence that they targeted non-combatants. And regardless, denying anyone the ability to defend himself against accusations in a trial is a big NO as far as I'm concerned.

Centurion1

01-04-2010, 22:47

How about the man who flies in an expensive jet, drops a bomb on a "military target" and kills many civilians as "collateral damage"? How much time and respect do you have for him?

my father did that for 21 years. i dare say he never knowingly killed a civilian and probably never killed a civilian to begin with. its amazing what they can do with smart bombs these days.........

not making this personal of course, i respect your opinion.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-04-2010, 23:02

Touche? No. Tacky.

This sniper guy played by the rules. The insurgent-types, regardless of age, don't. Therefore sniper guy is entitled to certain protections the insurgent-types don't get.

The moral equivalence in this thread is revolting. :thumbsdown:

:yes:

But an even larger question, one which we have not touched on, is why these people were allowed in to Britain, if they were born in Britain, if they can/should be deported, and what exactly the government is doing about the situation as a whole.

Hax

01-04-2010, 23:07

That's the big secret. Just like Vietnam, another winnable war, the issue is not the tactical or strategic situation; but the will to win.

War has no winners, only losers.

Kralizec

01-05-2010, 01:07

War has no winners, only losers.

Yay, yet another cliché :balloon2:

seireikhaan

01-05-2010, 01:50

Yay, yet another cliché :balloon2:
Isn't pretty much all of political philosophy cliched at this point? :book: You can say that "war=bad" is cliched, and the same for "no winners in war", yet the exact same is true for Machiavelli when he says things like:
There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others.Point is, being "cliched" does not make it irrelevant or mistaken. Merely old.

Husar

01-05-2010, 02:03

Anyway, you want disgusting? I'll give you disgusting... The norwegian camp in Afghanistan was attacked on new years eve, and footage taken by the soldiers was shown on the news. At one point, a grenade detonates over an enemy position, and a soldier screams "lekkert!"(beautiful!)... The deaths or, at best, mutilation of another human being was....beautiful...

That was one psycho taking too much pleasure from killing, methinks.
Well, I disagree there, to be happy that the guy who wanted to kill you is now dead himself is neither irrational nor psycho, it's part of the survival instinct IMO. As you said yourself:

War is a fight to the death, people. As long as your enemy still lives, there's a chance of you dying. You can't retire from war. Deaths are rarely forgiven, and never forgotten. Thinking otherwise is naive beyond reason.
Yet even this is wrong, if deaths were never forgiven, Europe would have been a real mess after WW2, probably until now. Then there was this christmas peace in WW1 where soldiers from both sides celebrated together, weird(and nice at the same time), but IIRC it really happened.

This sniper guy played by the rules. The insurgent-types, regardless of age, don't. Therefore sniper guy is entitled to certain protections the insurgent-types don't get.

The moral equivalence in this thread is revolting. :thumbsdown:
The funny thing is if the insurgents played by the rules, they might as well give up right away, or kill themselves. But humans aren't keen to die so they'll bend "the rules" as much as they can in order to be successful. then again, how exactly do the insurgents not play by the rules? They're not using ABC weapons, are they?
Is it just the lack of a proper uniform? As I said, might as well commit suicide then.

Centurion1

01-05-2010, 02:28

The funny thing is if the insurgents played by the rules, they might as well give up right away, or kill themselves.

nah, killing civilians doesnt really advance their goals.

ieds are not really breaking the rules, its basically a mine and an insurgent (meaning any insurgent) weapon of choice is the ambush which is definitely fair.

would they lose the fear advantage, yeah but there are other ways of promoting that and remaining within the rules.

miotas

01-05-2010, 02:37

nah, killing civilians doesnt really advance their goals.

Are we still discussing the article in the op? Because there was no mention of anyone killing civilians in that article.

Centurion1

01-05-2010, 02:45

i was talking about whether or not insurgents play by the rules.

its been at least three pages, the thread is now required to be derailed by something similar but not the same as the op.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-05-2010, 03:28

What I'm getting out of this thread can be summarized as follows:

Insurgents don't play by the rules of war. But that's OK, because otherwise they couldn't win.
Insurgents kill civilians on purpose. But that's OK, because occasionally the West does so by accident.
Insurgents take joy in capturing soldiers and civilians and cutting their throats. But that's OK, because a Norwegian soldier once called a perfect shot "beautiful."
Insurgents massacre civilians. But that's OK, because snipers kill insurgents and are therefore just as bad.
British insurgents try to kill their own soldiers. But that's OK, because we're in "their" country.

:help:

spmetla

01-05-2010, 04:53

I still don't get how anyone in this thread can support the Taliban or Al Queda. Even if one opposed the war in Afghanistan the way the coalition fights is far more humane than the Taliban. Coalition forces do their best to avoid civilian casualties. Unfortunately it is difficult to distinguish between bad guys and civilians due to the fact their dress exactly the same. When the coalition does kill civilians they actually try and compensate for the deaths financially, though this is always to be a number far less that one might think is comparable to a human life if even possible.

Contrast this with the Taliban and Al Queda who systematically threaten and kill civilians that oppose or at least refuse to aid them. In areas they control they kill and rape people that don't conform to their interpretation of Islam. Bear in mind that even Pakistan has had to go and fight them outright such as when they had to retake Swat valley because the Taliban were creating such havoc on the civilians and attempting to expand their influence into more of Pakistan.

What do you expect from Western soldiers? To curl up in a ball and cry when they are attacked? Do you honestly believe that most soldiers enjoy taking human life? I've got more than enough friends that have seen plenty of combat and they don't take pride in having had to kill. Yeah, they might be proud that they won their skirmish with the enemy, or that they managed to keep their cool under fire but in the actual act of killing they certainly don't seem to have enjoyed it.

While I don't like soldiers being attacked at home by enemy sympathizers I will admit that at least attacking a soldier is legitimate, though do so when one is a citizen of the same country and receives the benefits of that citizenship it is nothing less than treason.

A fair number of you have pointed out that you'd gladly fight against invaders in your country, fine fair enough. Would you also go and rape, torture or kill your neighbors that don't outright support you? If the neighboring county or province was largely collaborating with the invader would you feel justified to commit mass murder against them?

Too many of you give too much credit to the Taliban and Al Queda. They are beyond just playing different rules than conventional war, they don't fight anything close to a 'clean' guerrilla war and frankly its not like they only started fighting like this when they were invaded.

miotas

01-05-2010, 05:06

I think you will find that it's more of a case of seeing the matter from both sides, and not being surprised that someone wants to kill a soldier, than it is showing support for the Taliban or Al-Qaeda. You don't need to agree with someone to understand their side of the matter.

spmetla

01-05-2010, 05:31

CCRunner

01-05-2010, 07:22

Hah!

Great job, Al-Q!... :gah:

There are some people in this world I'll never understand. In this case, I think that's a good thing.

HoreTore

01-05-2010, 08:10

I understand the attack on the soldier and do acknowledge his being a legitimate target but being able to justify an attack on a soldier in his home country still does not excuse congratulating Al Queda for trying to do so.

No.

But I see every reason to congratulate them for shifting their focus away from civilians and onto legitimate targets, ie. soldiers and other agents of the state.

And as for any reference to "rules" in this thread; it's been made very clear that the geneva conventions does not apply in this war. Therefore, there aren't any rules to follow in the first place... Remind yourself to thank Bush and Cheney for that one, everyone :2thumbsup:

Touche.

Insurgents who are captured after fighting with soldiers should be considered prisoners of war instead of "illegal combatants". I don't recall however that you ever defended Gitmo or Abu Graib by saying "it's war, what do you expect" as vehemently as you do here.

No, you see, this is one of the reasons I am so opposed to the gitmo stupidity; it takes away our moral high ground. How can one accuse the other party of being bastards when you're doing the same :daisy: yourself?

And as I asked earlier, why should the arrested people mentioned in the article be considered "legitimate" combatants? They're British citizens of Pakistani descent. I can only imagine the trials that go on in HoreToreland...

Judge: "You admit to having tried/abduct to kill person X in his own house. Do you have anyting else to say?"
Suspect: "Well, I know he was a soldier who served in Afghanistan."
Judge: "Yes, and?"
Suspect: "I'm rooting for the other team, so..."
Judge: "Okay, you got me there. You're free to go"

No, I would expect them to be treated as prisoners of war, ie. held under the conditions international law dictates until the end of the war and then released or taken to the Haag, if they are suspected of war crimes.

Strike For The South

01-05-2010, 08:56

You people think to much.

There was a murder

The murderer should be tried

The murderer should be punished

People are targeted for allot of things and the mountains being made out of molehills in this thread are sad.

Not to mention your home country is not a safe zone. People have become desensitized to that. You try to go and blow someones house over and you can be damn sure he's going to get to you first. Which is why war should always be a last resort. Its not fun nor on the individual level is it a political tool. But these things get forgotten when you talk in the abstract.

miotas

01-05-2010, 10:12

You people think to much.

There was a conspiracy

The conspirators should be tried

The conspirators should be punished

Fixed.

Subotan

01-05-2010, 10:49

nah, killing civilians doesnt really advance their goals.

ieds are not really breaking the rules, its basically a mine and an insurgent (meaning any insurgent) weapon of choice is the ambush which is definitely fair.

would they lose the fear advantage, yeah but there are other ways of promoting that and remaining within the rules.

The United States will only be able to clame that IED's are unjustified when they sign up to the Ottawa Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty). Until then, they're a bunch of hypocrites.

Kralizec

01-05-2010, 11:32

No, I would expect them to be treated as prisoners of war, ie. held under the conditions international law dictates until the end of the war and then released or taken to the Haag, if they are suspected of war crimes.

No, it's not. Battlefield kills ≠ political murder.

To spell it out for you:
An Afghan rebel shooting at a coalition soldier in Afghanistan is involved in a war, should be treated as a combatant etc.
A British citizen who decides to murder his neighbour because said neighbour has fought in a war in a far away place is a murderer. To suggest that this guy is not just a common murderer and should be sent to an international court desipte the fact that there's no international dimension to the case at all, is...well, stupid.

Fragony

01-05-2010, 11:57

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-05-2010, 12:22

No it's not that stupid, we are caught up in our own terminology. If this is a global war on terror then the whole world is the battlefield, so a soldier on leave in the UK can be a legitimate target, he will go back after all. You guys sound like WW1 generals, war has changed there are no clear battlefields.

The UK isn't fighting a "Global War on Terror", we specifically avoid that terminology now. We're fighting a war in Afganistan.

So....

Andres

01-05-2010, 12:33

A British citizen who decides to murder his neighbour because said neighbour has fought in a war in a far away place is a murderer. To suggest that this guy is not just a common murderer and should be sent to an international court desipte the fact that there's no international dimension to the case at all, is...well, stupid.

How would you call an Afghan citizen who decides to kill his neighbour because said neighbour has fought for the Taleban?

A murderer or a freedom fighter?

Fragony

01-05-2010, 12:35

We're fighting a war in Afganistan.

But not with Afghanistan. I don't agree with my own argument, but I think it is a valid position to take, bit too late to change the terminology war has already been declared. You shouldn't be too surprised that this is happening, radical muslims don't think in 'nations' only in 'brothers', if you look at it from their perspective it is justified. We bring death to their muslim brothers there, and they bring death to us here. If you are willing to let go of idea's such as a classical battlefield it makes sense.

rory_20_uk

01-05-2010, 12:56

But not with radical muslims don't think in 'nations' only in 'brothers', if you look at it from their perspective it is justified. We bring death to their muslim brothers there, and they bring death to us here. If you are willing to let go of idea's such as a classical battlefield it makes sense.

I guess the term "brothers" allows them to pick and choose amongst who makes the grade or not. When there are no Western Infidels to kill, people following the "wrong" type of Islam make a pretty good substitute.

~:smoking:

Fragony

01-05-2010, 13:05

I guess the term "brothers" allows them to pick and choose amongst who makes the grade or not. When there are no Western Infidels to kill, people following the "wrong" type of Islam make a pretty good substitute.

~:smoking:

Sure, just being the devil's advocate, I am not that fond of radical muslims personally. But what can be seen as a cowardly murder can just as well be seen as an act of war, depending on your perspective on world-affairs. Now I have little patience with their perspective on world-affairs, but it does have it's own logic.

Hax

01-05-2010, 14:56

I guess the term "brothers" allows them to pick and choose amongst who makes the grade or not. When there are no Western Infidels to kill, people following the "wrong" type of Islam make a pretty good substitute.

Before the western infidel dogs decided to :daisy: up affairs in Iran and Afghanistan, they were perfectly comfortable killing eachother. If there's one thing Shi'ite extremists hate more than the West, it's Sunnis. And the other way around, of course.

Beskar

01-05-2010, 15:02

Oh and Hindu's and Muslim's really hate eachother too.

You don't want to get them two into a religious war.

Viking

01-05-2010, 15:16

War has no winners, only losers.

Few victories are gained without a little sacrifice, and war is no exception.

Husar

01-05-2010, 15:17

Uhm, insurgents don't kill civilians, terrorists kill civilians. Kinda explains why I didn't think about the "Insurgents don't play by the rules because they kill civilians" - angle.
Insurgents are people who fight the armed forces in their country to drive them out, or that's how I understand the word.

Centurion1

01-05-2010, 17:00

HoreTore

01-05-2010, 20:29

No, it's not. Battlefield kills ≠ political murder.

To spell it out for you:
An Afghan rebel shooting at a coalition soldier in Afghanistan is involved in a war, should be treated as a combatant etc.
A British citizen who decides to murder his neighbour because said neighbour has fought in a war in a far away place is a murderer. To suggest that this guy is not just a common murderer and should be sent to an international court desipte the fact that there's no international dimension to the case at all, is...well, stupid.

Why should Britian have the right to define what the battlefield is? Why should you get to decide that Afghan houses are a part of the battlefield, while british houses are not?

Sorry mate, but when you made afghan houses part of the battlefield, you also automatically made british houses a part of the battlefield. It's not illegal for one part in a war to expand, you know.

Louis VI the Fat

01-05-2010, 21:54

However, when a British person murders his own neighbour, because that neighbour served in a war wich he disagrees with, that Brit is not an insurgent, not a participant in a war, but a domestic terrorist. I haven't seen any of the Taliban fanboys put forward a good argument why such a person should be treated as equal to a soldier.Me, I'd round up these traitors and hang 'em on Trafalgar Square.

But I do think there's truth in the statement that 'terrorist' is what the large army calls the small army. The difference here is not so much in the method employed. Tracking down enemy fighters and attacking them in their homes is precisely what we are doing in Afghanistan.

Below the British army. It tracks down, and attacks and kills a man who had previously fought as a foreign combatant in Afgnahistan. The army kills him in his home, back in his native country.

BRITISH forces killed Omar Faruq, a "terrorist of considerable significance", in a pre-dawn raid yesterday in southern Basra.

Faruq was killed in the raid against his home when he opened fire on British soldiers entering the building, forces spokesman Maj Charlie Burbridge said.

"We had information that a terrorist of considerable significance was hiding in Basra, and as a result of that information we conducted an operation in an attempt to arrest him," Burbridge said.
"During the attempt-ed arrest Omar Faruq was killed, which is regrettable because we wanted to arrest him."

When asked if it was Omar Faruq, a top leader of al-Queda in south-east Asia, who escaped last year from a US prison in Afghanistan, he said he could not elaborate and cited British policy not allowing him to link an individual to a specific organisation.
But neighbours said Faruq was a member of al-Queda and had received training in camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Basra police Lt Col Kareem al-Zubaidi identified the man by a different name, but said he was a known Iraqi extremist who returned two weeks ago after reportedly fighting US troops in Afghanistan.
http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/news-letter-belfast-northern-ireland-the/mi_7950/is_2006_Sept_26/british-forces-kill-al-queda/ai_n34388915/

Do I mind? No, because I'm with the British, and against the Taleban / AQ. But self-righteous indignation about the other side is not going to cut it. War is bloody, and messy. It kills the people. War is not clinical, or simple. Killing people when they are back home with their wife and kids, sometimes together with them, is what we do. That is precisely the face of our troops in Afghanistan.

the western infidel dogs Nobody forces anybody to live in the West. Might I suggest those who loathe the West try Yemen for a while if that sounds more like their cup of tea?

HoreTore

01-05-2010, 21:59

Do I mind? No, because I'm with the British, and against the Taleban / AQ. But self-righteous indignation about the other side is not going to cut it. War is bloody, and messy. It kills the people. War is not clinical, or simple. Killing people when they are back home with their wife and kids, sometimes together with them, is what we do. That is precisely the face of our troops in Afghanistan.

Indeed. I have no problem with our own forces doing stuff like this(except that they don't treat captured enemies like PoW's and send them to gitmo, of course...), why should I have any problem with the other guys doing it too?

War is war.

caravel

01-05-2010, 22:08

Thermal

01-05-2010, 22:14

I think its more that the British & US aren't wanted in Iran and afghanistan (or wherever) If the inhabitants are planting mines and road side bombs as well as forming a resistance, then as far as I see it, given the depth and determination of Afghanistan and Iran, they should just withdraw, because men are being sent in at incredibly meagre rates, there presence in the middle east isn't that helpful at the moment.

Whilst media does bias things, I believe many of the middle eastern countries have people that genuinely want Britain and other countries (Singapore, US etc.) to help, but they are hidden behind military forces such as the taliban, which will have none of it.

I don't know what the government think there doing. :shrug:

don't reply to this post :whip:

Husar

01-06-2010, 02:54

True. Unfortunately people have lost sight and are detached from these conflicts because they are not happening on their own doorsteps.

Well, now they are and people say it's not fair.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-06-2010, 03:34

Well, now they are and people say it's not fair.

...

British insurgents try to kill their own soldiers. But that's OK, because we're in "their" country.

Really? We're not saying it isn't "fair", we know it isn't. The world isn't. What we are saying is that it is illegal and immoral for that to happen. For you to make that comment you must have lost track of how the war started as well as not knowing how and why we operate in Afghanistan.

And "their" country? These people aren't Afghan, they're British of Pakistani origin. Most of these terrorists are Uzbek, Chechen, Pakistani, Tajik, Yemeni, Saudi, Syrians, and so on. "Their" country my :daisy:.

Meneldil

01-06-2010, 08:01

As said earlier, they don't give a damn about their or your country.

The fact that a large part of the western world gives much cultural and political importance to the place where you live or where you were born doesn't mean everyone does. If you're a radical muslim, your nation is Islam, not Britain, and afghans are your fellows.

rory_20_uk

01-06-2010, 08:59

I don't really see why we restrict who can leave the country, it should be returning that is the difficult part.

If Europe could draw out most of the radicals to more appropriate places to live the rest of us would have a better time of it.

~:smoking:

HoreTore

01-06-2010, 09:01

And "their" country? These people aren't Afghan, they're British of Pakistani origin. Most of these terrorists are Uzbek, Chechen, Pakistani, Tajik, Yemeni, Saudi, Syrians, and so on. "Their" country my :daisy:.

....And the World Trade center was located in New York, Berlin, London, Amsterdam and a dozen other places all at the same time?

Kralizec

01-06-2010, 13:59

Why should Britian have the right to define what the battlefield is? Why should you get to decide that Afghan houses are a part of the battlefield, while british houses are not?

Sorry mate, but when you made afghan houses part of the battlefield, you also automatically made british houses a part of the battlefield. It's not illegal for one part in a war to expand, you know.

Why should Al -Quada and the Taliban have the right to decide that the WTC is a valid target?

Sorry mate, but when the the government of Afghanistan decided to aid and abet Al-Quada in deliberate attacks on civilian targets...they should be grateful that Devastatin Dave wasn't in charge.

Me, I'd round up these traitors and hang 'em on Trafalgar Square.

But I do think there's truth in the statement that 'terrorist' is what the large army calls the small army. The difference here is not so much in the method employed. Tracking down enemy fighters and attacking them in their homes is precisely what we are doing in Afghanistan.

Below the British army. It tracks down, and attacks and kills a man who had previously fought as a foreign combatant in Afgnahistan. The army kills him in his home, back in his native country.

Do I mind? No, because I'm with the British, and against the Taleban / AQ. But self-righteous indignation about the other side is not going to cut it. War is bloody, and messy. It kills the people. War is not clinical, or simple. Killing people when they are back home with their wife and kids, sometimes together with them, is what we do. That is precisely the face of our troops in Afghanistan.

Nobody seriously expects Al-Quada sympathizers to play by any rules whatsoever. Terrorist movements are like forces of nature. Many people have responded to the article in the original post with "Meh, it's to be expected". The moral outrage in this thread is largely directed against certain people, like the gentlemen I quoted above you, who applaud their efforts.

Some would say that rules of war stand or fall with reciprocity. States can be expected to controll their armed forces and be held accountable for violations. Movements with no or little coherence can't.
Personally I'm of the opinion that sometimes rules of war should be applied by analogy. However the idea espoused by some here, that someone who has by their acts disregarded rules of war should somehow be elligable for POW treatment is absurd. They should still be able to defend themselves in a trial, of course. But you can't defend your actions by saying that normal rules of war don't apply at all, and at the same time demand that you're treated according to those same rules.

I more or less agree with you in that in assymetric conflicts like the ones in Iraq or Afghanistan, both sides are forced to deviate from standard practice. The "small army" can't win by playing by old rules so they change their behaviour. That explains it, but wether it justifies it is in the eyes of the beholder.

A technicality: I don't think you can compare an insurgent who's sleeping/eating/whatever in his house with a soldier who's been sent home to his country. The insurgent is still an active participant during "work hours" or will resume his activities at an opportune moment. A soldier who's staying at his own house id definitely not an active participant, and unlike the insurgent doesn't keep weapons in his own house. An insurgents house is more comporable to a barracks where active soldiers are staying.

Kadagar_AV

01-06-2010, 17:04

Isn't it cute when people realise they are at war?

"Oh my god, our soldiers are threatened IN THEIR OWN HOMES!!!"

:inquisitive:

Seamus Fermanagh

01-06-2010, 17:21

[QUOTE=Kralizec;2409407]Why should Al -Quada and the Taliban have the right to decide that the WTC is a valid target?

Sorry mate, but when the the government of Afghanistan decided to aid and abet Al-Quada in deliberate attacks on civilian targets...they should be grateful that Devastatin Dave wasn't in charge./QUOTE]

I recall my father's idea of a "proportional" response following 9-11-01. Had he been President, he asserted, he would have ordered nuclear strikes against Kabul, Tehran, Qom, Damascus, Mogadishu, and Benghazi within 48 hours of the attack. Following the identification of the attack teams, he would have added Riyadh, Mecca and Medina to the list. He wasn't much for subtlety.

Fortunately, my father's penchant for telling people he distrusted that they were filled with excrement meant that there was never any danger of his being elected to the Presidency -- no diplomat he.

Subotan

01-06-2010, 18:21

Isn't it cute when people realise they are at war?

"Oh my god, our soldiers are threatened IN THEIR OWN HOMES!!!"

:inquisitive:

As if our soldiers are allowed respite from the horrors of war, whilst Taliban soldiers are not.

Kralizec

01-06-2010, 18:29

Seems everybody is still dodging the question wether the Pakistani Brits who tried to abduct the soldier should be punished, or how.

Not that I expected differently :juggle2:

Subotan

01-06-2010, 18:48

I didn't dodge it.

spmetla

01-06-2010, 19:16

Actually I think a fair number of us have said they should be punished as traitors.

I don't however, understand the condescending attitude toward people condemning the conspirators as traitors? From what's been written no one seems surprised by the attempt or the target. I'm only surprised that people think that conspirators are in the right because their fellow muslim radicals are under attack. If you're willing to to put every muslim fanatic on the level of a soldier for his cause despite national boundaries then you've essentially agreed that the global aspect of the Global War on Terror is perfectly justified and correct.

As for treating these enemy combatants as POWs, does this mean they should be detained until the end of hostilities and then returned to their home country? Because that would probably mean they would be perpetual POWs then. I'm much more a fan of trying them in civilian courts on terrorism charges (in the host nations justice system too) than for treating them as POWS or sending them to Gitmo to await military tribunals.

Kralizec

01-06-2010, 19:21

I didn't dodge it.

You mean this?

Of course, the extremists mentioned in the article are probably criminals and should have the full force of the British justice system brought down upon them. But that doesn't mean that the soldiers this sniper were criminals, just as it turned out that a large proportion of the insurgents fighting Americans in Iraq weren't either.

The word "probably" seems superflous (allthough correct from a legal perspective) because it seems like a clear-cut case, but fair enough. I'll pass the word to my CIA collegues that you'll be taken off the list :bow:

Actually I think a fair number of us have said they should be punished as traitors.

Yeah, I should have been more specific. I was thinking of the people who defended the tactics described in the article.

HoreTore

01-06-2010, 20:09

I recall my father's idea of a "proportional" response following 9-11-01. Had he been President, he asserted, he would have ordered nuclear strikes against Kabul, Tehran, Qom, Damascus, Mogadishu, and Benghazi within 48 hours of the attack. Following the identification of the attack teams, he would have added Riyadh, Mecca and Medina to the list. He wasn't much for subtlety.

Fortunately, my father's penchant for telling people he distrusted that they were filled with excrement meant that there was never any danger of his being elected to the Presidency -- no diplomat he.

I don't get it.

I get a warning for saying "good job" when someone tries to kill a soldier.

Another mod talks about killing millions of completely innocent people.......

Furunculus

01-06-2010, 20:14

I don't get it.

I get a warning for saying "good job" when someone tries to kill a soldier.

Another mod talks about killing millions of completely innocent people.......

one might be considered an incitement to violence.......... the other is an allegorical tale.

Banquo's Ghost

01-06-2010, 20:57

I don't get it.

Clearly. :dizzy2:

Though I know you do "get it" very well, since you explained your own transgression very eloquently in PM. And I suspect pretty much every other member "gets" why the warning was issued.

HoreTore

01-06-2010, 21:52

one might be considered an incitement to violence.......... the other is an allegorical tale.

Yes, I know that saying you want to kill a few million innocent people is an incitement to violence, that was kinda the point...

@banqou; this isn't about modding policies...

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-06-2010, 22:00

Yes, I know that saying you want to kill a few million innocent people is an incitement to violence, that was kinda the point...

It wasn't an incitement of violence, he was telling about what someone else said. You, on the other hand, made an absolutely tasteless remark. The mods made the right call.

HoreTore

01-06-2010, 22:03

It wasn't an incitement of violence, he was telling about what someone else said. You, on the other hand, made an absolutely tasteless remark. The mods made the right call.

So.....

If I added the line "a friend of mine said..." then it would've been a-ok, right?

johnhughthom

01-06-2010, 22:08

Honestly Hore Tore, whatever the rights and wrongs of what you said, to compare that with Seamus' post is ludicrous.

Viking

01-06-2010, 22:09

So.....

If I added the line "a friend of mine said..." then it would've been a-ok, right?

I like to think that there is a difference between quoting someone as an illustration and uttering a view of your own.

HoreTore

01-06-2010, 22:13

Honestly Hore Tore, whatever the rights and wrongs of what you said, to compare that with Seamus' post is ludicrous.

Yes, I do find it ludicrous that the death of one man is considered worse than the deaths of millions.

Especially when the millions are completely innocent, while the one man is not.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-06-2010, 22:31

So.....

If I added the line "a friend of mine said..." then it would've been a-ok, right?

Yes. Then we know that your friend had false, offensive, and inaccurate opinions, and you didn't share them. That would be fine. In addition:

I like to think that there is a difference between quoting someone as an illustration and uttering a view of your own.

That is a good post.

Yes, I do find it ludicrous that the death of one man is considered worse than the deaths of millions.

Especially when the millions are completely innocent, while the one man is not.

He never said that. Context.

With respect, you're wrong. If you can't see that, perhaps you should take a break and come back and read this when you've cooled down a bit.

HoreTore

01-06-2010, 22:48

He never said that. Context.

So when someone says they want to send a nuclear bomb on Mecca or whatever, it doesn't mean that they want to kill millions of people...?

With respect, you're wrong. If you can't see that, perhaps you should take a break and come back and read this when you've cooled down a bit.

I'd like to qoute the Lemur:

Who's raging? Please, feel free to address what I'm saying, but spare me your (mistaken) attempt to decode my personal state of mind. I'm having a fantastic day, getting good news right and left, for reasons that shall remain unstated on this board, since they have everything to do with Real Life and nothing to do with the internet tubes. Frankly, I'm full of happiness right now.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-06-2010, 22:59

So when someone says they want to send a nuclear bomb on Mecca or whatever, it doesn't mean that they want to kill millions of people...?

Seamus didn't say that he wanted to. In fact, he said he disagreed with it. Really, what's wrong with you in this thread? Normally you are sensible and fairly even-handed, even though we disagree on matters of opinion.

Kralizec

01-06-2010, 23:00

HoreTore, I'm going to paraphrase Tribesman here:

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Furunculus

01-06-2010, 23:03

people get cranky sometimes.

Beskar

01-07-2010, 01:00

My uncle is on the right, he shares a lot of views with Furunculus, strangely. I remember his solution to the middle east was just to "glass the bug' s".

He compared Iran to a neighbour who was build a gun, threatening to use it on you, calling you nasty remarks and names and that very same neighbour was attempting to create ammo for that gun which he claims he will use against you.

"Unless you are a draft ***, you would obviously sort that bug' out." etc etc

So yeah, that his 'solution' to the middle-east and I can symphaise with Seamus Fermanagh as I also don't share that opinion just like him.

Also, Horetore, Seamus Fermanagh condemned that opinion, like I condemn it. He was voicing opposition to it, not support.

HoreTore

01-07-2010, 08:30

Also, Horetore, Seamus Fermanagh condemned that opinion, like I condemn it. He was voicing opposition to it, not support.

Yes, it wasn't about Seamus, it was about people saying "let's bomb city x" all the time, with little to no reaction. Say something negative about one of our boys in uniform, however, and all hell breaks loose...

Also, my brain may be reacting to the fact that it's 30 bloody degrees below 0 here now... I won't be winning any measurement contest now, that's for sure.

Kadagar_AV

01-07-2010, 09:20

Furunculus

01-07-2010, 09:32

Meneldil

01-07-2010, 09:36

HoreTore, remember this forum (at least this part) has american standards when it comes to morals.

[SPOIL]I also got a warning for dedicating the darwin award to those who died in the war against terrorism. Fair? Not by scandinavian standards, but how many scandinavian mods do you see around here?

Didn't know that being scandinavian allowed people to forget about things like good taste and decency. From all I know, the few scandinavians I met would never have voiced such an opinion in public. But hey, we're on the internet, so I guess trolling is just fair game.

rory_20_uk

01-07-2010, 11:26

And about the british soldiers... One question, has England actually declared war? If not, what rules apply to this conflict?

Last I checked no formal declaration of war has been made, except against "terrorism", and that wasnt formal nor clearly defined. Is this correct?

These days wars are illegal without a UN resolution. And as you point out, since the Taliban isn't a country, there is no one to declare war on.

Rules on anti-insurgency are far less clear than a war as historically no one really cared how you slaughtered those within your own borders; these days there are probably enough countries that would block any motion to alter this.

~:smoking:

Banquo's Ghost

01-07-2010, 13:44

DBut hey, we're on the internet, so I guess trolling is just fair game.

Not on this bit of the intertubes, which appears to be the surprise to some.

It was worth me ordering those American Morals though. Wretched MS spellchecker, I was really after some mushrooms. Nonetheless, Vladimir can finally be proud of me. :beam:

Vladimir

01-07-2010, 14:46

Not on this bit of the intertubes, which appears to be the surprise to some.

It was worth me ordering those American Morals though. Wretched MS spellchecker, I was really after some mushrooms. Nonetheless, Vladimir can finally be proud of me. :beam:

:laugh4: Vladimir is always proud of Banquo. :bow:

Seamus Fermanagh

01-07-2010, 16:06

I don't get it.

I get a warning for saying "good job" when someone tries to kill a soldier.

Another mod talks about killing millions of completely innocent people.......

I was noting that some people have a tendency to over-react (as did my father) while noting that it was a GOOD THING that no one quite so blood-thirsty was serving as President at the time. If you didn't pick up on that, sorry to have been unclear.

Seamus Fermanagh

01-07-2010, 16:14

As if our soldiers are allowed respite from the horrors of war, whilst Taliban soldiers are not.

Actually, creating a situation where your blokes CAN get a respite while their blokes CAN't is one of the better definitions I've heard for a "victory" recipe in this sort of low-intensity conflict. Might be the only way to grind down the opponent's will to combat. Since it's difficult at best to eradicate a guerilla force completely and no guerilla force can truly defeat the occupier in the field, it is the erosion of the will to combat that is the prime component. They who quit last win.

Seamus Fermanagh

01-07-2010, 16:24

HoreTore, remember this forum (at least this part) has american standards when it comes to morals.

I also got a warning for dedicating the darwin award to those who died in the war against terrorism. Fair? Not by scandinavian standards, but how many scandinavian mods do you see around here?

In the end I guess we just have to accept a different moral compass, I mean, just imagine the shock the mods would get from visiting a swedish forum, like...I'm sure half the population here would get there panties in a twist.

To the best of my knowledge, I am the only Yank on the BR Mod Squad, take second or third chair to Banquo's lead, and enforce BR norms/rules that were in place long since. Moreover, I hear complaints from all directions -- which suggests to me that the fairness factor is pretty balanced.

Last I checked no formal declaration of war has been made, except against "terrorism", and that wasnt formal nor clearly defined. Is this correct?

THIS is a good point, and one of the failings of the entire Western strategy in opposing fanatical muslim terrorism. Bush's failure to force Congress to make a formal declaration of war -- coupled with his "go back to consumerism" message after 9-11-01 -- has been a limitation on our attitude and ability that very much hampers the effort. As a result, we have a war that isn't being waged as a war but IS curtailing some elements of personal freedom and getting people killed. I dislike half-***** measures.

Furunculus

01-07-2010, 18:02

THIS is a good point, and one of the failings of the entire Western strategy in opposing fanatical muslim terrorism. Bush's failure to force Congress to make a formal declaration of war -- coupled with his "go back to consumerism" message after 9-11-01 -- has been a limitation on our attitude and ability that very much hampers the effort. As a result, we have a war that isn't being waged as a war but IS curtailing some elements of personal freedom and getting people killed. I dislike half-***** measures.

tut tut tut :smash: :

If you feel you must (usually for emphasis) then all letters of the word must be asterisked out. This does not mean a starting letter plus asterisks to indicate what you really meant. Nor does it mean the "innocent" half of the word left in with a few asterisks. It means all. A Backroom tradition has grown up to use the smiley instead of a prohibited word - this is fine, and everyone will understand.

broadly agreed however. :)

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-07-2010, 22:24

Didn't know that being scandinavian allowed people to forget about things like good taste and decency. From all I know, the few scandinavians I met would never have voiced such an opinion in public. But hey, we're on the internet, so I guess trolling is just fair game.

Indeed, most Scandinavians I know are impeccably and consistently polite and respectful.

Furunculus

01-07-2010, 22:45

i know a huge number of finns, and they are indeed a polite lot, but i believe them terms themselves as nordic rather than scandinavian..........

Subotan

01-08-2010, 00:08

Isn't Scandinavian countries a geographic term, whilst Nordic countries is cultural?

Brenus

01-08-2010, 00:41

Was the Taliban Regime (as understand nowadays, as Islamic Fighter and not students in Religion) the Dictatorship in control of Afghanistan when NATO decided to attack as it was harbouring the criminals who lead the Twin Towers attack?
Yes.
So, the actual Talibans are de facto if not de juro the soldiers of this regime.
So, to bring iron and fire in enemy territory is not really against the rules, not even killing civilian in “collateral” damage.

Snipers are legitimate targets at home or in the brothel, on leave or in the local smoking house, as all soldiers were and are in a conflict…
During the Indochina War, the French had special units targetting Political Commissars, Finances Officers and all Logistic and Warehouses men in charge... It was so efficient that the Vietminh was putting the heads of these men on reward.:yes:

Now, I am not a sympathiser of the Taliban Regime, and I fully supported the Afghan war, and still.
I don’t thing the Talibans have one chance to win…
People and journalists referring to the Soviet war just forget that this victory was due to the delivery of Ground-Air Missile Stinger thanks to CIA and USA which made the Soviet Air Assault tactic (dropping Spetnatz on the back of the enemy having engage frontally the guerrilla units, in this copying the French tactic used in Algeria) impossible to sustain and their Hind less efficient.
We can just thank Putin not to return the change.

What if fact surprises me is why any enemy engage in a war against NATO waited so long to do so (and to be true, nothing happened in UK regarding this actually)?
If I would have been either Milosevic or Saddam, I would have put few sympathisers in my army uniform, provide ID and all military documents and go for CNN or other military targets, then when having to surrender, the troops would have ask for Geneva Convention.
That what is called a Commando Operation, or a Search and Destroy Operation.
We found normal to hit media, bridges, road and police, so why should be surprise if an enemy do the same…

Now, the case of the British Muslim terrorists: If UK is at war with Taliban, it is death penalty, if they didn’t renounce to their nationality (for treason) or penalty for Murder (depending on the political point the UK would want to make) and have an afghan one…
The extreme-Islamic ideology denies nationalities and pretends to unite all the Muslims so there is no contradiction for a British Muslim to kill English soldiers, as they are infidels, living in the land of War, opposed to the land of Peace.
Footnote: There is where the words “Islam means Peace” used on certain Mosque are in fact true but not all the truth. The world is divided in two: The Land of Peace (the land of Islam where you can’t fight the population) and the Land of War (all what left, where you can do what you want until the population convert).
End of the footnote.

As said before, Al-Quaida is loosing the war.
None of its objectives are in fact near to be reached. The corrupted Muslim Regimes are still there, there never have be more infidel troops on the Dar al Islam, the land of Islam, and Muslims are killing more Muslims than the Crusaders so the Uma, the Community, the Unity of the Believers is still a long way to go to be achieve. The Caliphate is not for tomorrow.
So, as all the dying movement, it will go for extremisms and last resort tactics in a bet to revive at least a legend if not a reality of ubiquity and efficiency it never had.
For killing snipers at home to marching coffins in Leeds (as real Muslim don’t use coffin this is done of Media), all is for the show and the last reflex of a dying organisation.

Subotan

01-08-2010, 00:47

Good post Brenus :yes:

Watchman

01-08-2010, 02:11

i know a huge number of finns, and they are indeed a polite lot, but i believe them terms themselves as nordic rather than scandinavian..........*I* find Finns to be, on the average, a rude lot of horrible little idiots.
Though my perspective may be skewed by a customer-service job. :/

That latter belief would be correct.

Beskar

01-08-2010, 03:40

JFYI - i don't, and have not, supported unilateral strikes against middle eastern cities as a legitimate response to 911.

we spend a lot of money on fancy weapon systems that allow us many other more surgical retaliatory options than a first strike against urban population centres.

I meant on other issues, my apologies.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-08-2010, 03:48

Sorry, but aren't off duty soldiers who are outside of a war zone and not in uniform nor posing a direct threat protected from attack?

Beskar

01-08-2010, 03:51

Sorry, but aren't off duty soldiers who are outside of a war zone and not in uniform nor posing a direct threat protected from attack?

Unfortunately, as we wish that is the case, it hasn't been the case in History, EMFM. :no: :sad:

Especially for those who off-duty house is in the middle of the war-zone.

Though, we could get all the world leaders to settle their problems through gladiatorical combat, or have massive robotic armies duking it out on Mars, so we aren't affect on Earth.

Watchman

01-08-2010, 03:51

Sorry, but aren't off duty soldiers who are outside of a war zone and not in uniform nor posing a direct threat protected from attack?RAF Bomber Command does not understand what the dickies you're talking about, chap.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-08-2010, 04:12

Unfortunately, as we wish that is the case, it hasn't been the case in History, EMFM. :no: :sad:

I don't care about history, I care about the modern law. Even if your house is in the war zone, and you are part of a regular standing army, but you are in your house out of uniform and on leave, then I am fairly sure it would be murder to kill you. On the other hand, if you are part of a force not recognized as legitimate, I think that legally, you can be considered a target.

Kadagar_AV

01-08-2010, 05:44

Sorry, but aren't off duty soldiers who are outside of a war zone and not in uniform nor posing a direct threat protected from attack?

First of all, what is a war zone?

England joined the war against terror, no? And might thus be considered a zone of war.

I don't care about history, I care about the modern law. Even if your house is in the war zone, and you are part of a regular standing army, but you are in your house out of uniform and on leave, then I am fairly sure it would be murder to kill you. On the other hand, if you are part of a force not recognized as legitimate, I think that legally, you can be considered a target.

Problem is that we have no laws directing what we can and can not to in a situation like this. Since no war has been declared, the closest "law" fitting would be that the US invaded another nation without war declaration, and can thus be seen as a rogue state.

So taking pot shots at the "coalition of the willing" would thus be ok.

Oh, and if you think killing people in civilian clothes in their own homes is murder, then I am afraid the US (and england and so on) has a lot of blood on their hands.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-08-2010, 06:15

First of all, what is a war zone?

England joined the war against terror, no? And might thus be considered a zone of war.

No. A war zone is the location of a military conflict. It does not automatically include all of the sovereign soil of a participant in the conflict.

Problem is that we have no laws directing what we can and can not to in a situation like this. Since no war has been declared, the closest "law" fitting would be that the US invaded another nation without war declaration, and can thus be seen as a rogue state.

So taking pot shots at the "coalition of the willing" would thus be ok.

It can't be considered a rogue state as the Afghan mission was authorized by the United Nations, and military action without a declaration of war is legal under certain circumstances, including this one.

Even if killing an insurgent in his home is legal, killing an off-duty soldier in their home can still be illegal.

Oh, and if you think killing people in civilian clothes in their own homes is murder, then I am afraid the US (and england and so on) has a lot of blood on their hands.

I clearly said that that depends on the circumstances. The problem with an insurgent is that they are more or less always in uniform, one way or another. As a result, they are much different from, say, a uniformed Afghan soldier going home on leave.

Brenus

01-08-2010, 08:33

“Even if killing an insurgent in his home is legal, killing an off-duty soldier in their home can still be illegal.” No prob: You just have to go to explain to an insurgent that you can kill him at home BUT he can’t kill you at home, that his house being in a war zone you designed he can’t extend theses borders at your home.

We said they are not soldiers (but illegal fighters) and we want them to follow rules we choose.
Er, it doesn’t work like this. I am sure the NATO soldiers would prefer the Talibans or all enemies for this matter to line-up in trench against Abrahams and Gun Helicopters, with their AK and civilian clothes against our Kevlar and 5.56 mm weapons but I can’t imagine why they are not willing to do so…

Like I am sure that the SS would have LOVED my grand father to stop to attack them in the back, during the night, blowing up their trains and faced them man to man, him and his Wembley revolver, them with their Tiger and MP40…
:beam:

Watchman

01-08-2010, 12:40

Pretty sure that one pharaoh who invaded Nubia would also have loved it if the natives had stopped hit-and-running from the bushes and instead properly lined up to be squashed flat by his massed infantry divisions and war chariots.
For some reason, they didn't feel like being that accommodating.

Guerilla tactics are the refuge of the militarily grossly outmatched party, and pretty universally decried as "unfair" or whatever by the other side (who totally doesn't have any kind of vested interest in the matter). This is really just updating them to the global 21st century you know.

Subotan

01-08-2010, 13:03

Sorry, but aren't off duty soldiers who are outside of a war zone and not in uniform nor posing a direct threat protected from attack?

In that case, I guess we should stop all drone attacks on Wazirstan.

Fragony

01-08-2010, 13:25

England joined the war against terror, no? And might thus be considered a zone of war.

Yep, don't have to like it but it's true. So do we, and we will just have to swallow the occasional attack. Rules of conduct don't mean anything here, we have our weapons they have theirs.

HoreTore

01-08-2010, 16:06

No. A war zone is the location of a military conflict. It does not automatically include all of the sovereign soil of a participant in the conflict.

No, if the taliban doesn't want to include england in the war zone, it's all well and good, england isn't in the warzone.

But they can also decide that england is a warzone, and thus conduct operations there. Like they have done.

Why do you believe that only one party may decide the rules and laws in a war, EMFM?

Also; war has been declared in afghanistan; not by NATO, but OBL did it years ago.

Furunculus

01-08-2010, 17:23

In that case, I guess we should stop all drone attacks on Wazirstan.

under westphalian sovereignty you have the principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state, which Pakistan/Wazirastan is failing to implement because it is allowing its territory to be used as a base for attacks into neighbouring nation-states.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-08-2010, 18:26

In that case, I guess we should stop all drone attacks on Wazirstan.

No, and this:

under westphalian sovereignty you have the principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state, which Pakistan/Wazirastan is failing to implement because it is allowing its territory to be used as a base for attacks into neighbouring nation-states.

Is just one of the reasons why.

No, if the taliban doesn't want to include england in the war zone, it's all well and good, england isn't in the warzone.

But they can also decide that england is a warzone, and thus conduct operations there. Like they have done.

No, they cannot, as they are not a legitimate state party and therefore their opinions count for little or nothing. If we were fighting, say, Russia, and they decided to launch attacks in Britain, that would be another matter, and also a debatable one.

Why do you believe that only one party may decide the rules and laws in a war, EMFM?

Not decide. I didn't say that.

Also; war has been declared in afghanistan; not by NATO, but OBL did it years ago.

Doesn't matter, since OBL doesn't have the legal authority to declare war. What about United Nations peacemaking missions, by the way?

We are in Afghanistan as part of a UN-sanctioned mission. A declaration of war is not required.

Kadagar_AV

01-08-2010, 20:45

No, and this:

Is just one of the reasons why.

No, they cannot, as they are not a legitimate state party and therefore their opinions count for little or nothing. If we were fighting, say, Russia, and they decided to launch attacks in Britain, that would be another matter, and also a debatable one.

Not decide. I didn't say that.

Doesn't matter, since OBL doesn't have the legal authority to declare war. What about United Nations peacemaking missions, by the way? Should they always declare war?

We are in Afghanistan as part of a UN-sanctioned mission. A declaration of war is not required.

Can somebody take over?

This post is way to filled with errors for me to bother...

I mean, I don't mind an intellectual talk on the nets, however, when someone starts to draw facts from their behind, I tend to bow out.

So someone, please, re-read and answer... I have had my share.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-08-2010, 20:55

This post is way to filled with errors for me to bother...

Funny, I have yet to find an error in it.

Afghanistan is a UN-sanctioned mission.
OBL does not have the authority as a state party to declare war.
The Taliban, in their present situation, also do not constitute a state party.
I did not say that only one party should decide the rules of war. The rules of war are there and are to be followed as they pertain to the situation.

Any objections to those statements?

Furunculus

01-08-2010, 21:56

Can somebody take over?

This post is way to filled with errors for me to bother...

I mean, I don't mind an intellectual talk on the nets, however, when someone starts to draw facts from their behind, I tend to bow out.

So someone, please, re-read and answer... I have had my share.
seeing as EMFM quoted me, i am bound to ask if you feel you lack the proper grasp of westphalian sovereignty.............?

Brenus

01-09-2010, 00:24

“Afghanistan is a UN-sanctioned mission.” Nope. UN accepted the war as legitimate but it is not a UN war.

”OBL does not have the authority as a state party to declare war”: He didn’t. He led a terrorist attack. His terrorist and criminal organisation was on Afghan territory and the dictatorship in place refused to extradite him to US. OBL committed a crime.
So the US decided to attack this dictatorship.
A little bit like under the pretext of a mafia killing and a refusal of extradition, USA would attack UK…
Do, de facto and de juro USA declared war on Afghanistan, not reverse…

”The Taliban, in their present situation, also do not constitute a state party”.
Nor my grand father against the German Peace Keeping Forces in 1941… However, he still did few nasty things against them, even if the pseudo-legal Petainist State had signed an armistice…
Technically, none of the Former Colonies had the right to fight against the Metropolis, nor Spartacus to rebel against Rome… He was a slave…
The Talibans represent themselves and it is just enough…

”I did not say that only one party should decide the rules of war. The rules of war are there and are to be followed as they pertain to the situation.” In no rules of wars you will find you can’t attack and kill soldiers in R&R. In fact, it is the probably better moment to attack. No territory is proscribed from attack; that is why you have LRRP; there are no neutral zones, even in neutral countries; that is why you have SEAL.

So in fact, all your bits are, err, not really accurate…
:beam:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-09-2010, 01:12

“Afghanistan is a UN-sanctioned mission.” Nope. UN accepted the war as legitimate but it is not a UN war.

The definition of sanctioned:

1. Authoritative permission or approval that makes a course of action valid. See Synonyms at permission.
2. Support or encouragement, as from public opinion or established custom.
3. A consideration, influence, or principle that dictates an ethical choice.
4.
a. A law or decree.
b. The penalty for noncompliance specified in a law or decree.
5. A penalty, specified or in the form of moral pressure, that acts to ensure compliance or conformity.
6. A coercive measure adopted usually by several nations acting together against a nation violating international law.

So, yes, it was a UN-sanctioned mission.

”OBL does not have the authority as a state party to declare war”: He didn’t. He led a terrorist attack. His terrorist and criminal organisation was on Afghan territory and the dictatorship in place refused to extradite him to US. OBL committed a crime.
So the US decided to attack this dictatorship.
A little bit like under the pretext of a mafia killing and a refusal of extradition, USA would attack UK…
Do, de facto and de juro USA declared war on Afghanistan, not reverse…

Firstly, I do not recall a de jure declaration of war on Afghanistan by any party, though you are free to provide a source.

Secondly, your analogy is false. The government of Afghanistan was actively supporting Osama Bin Laden. It's a little different from the British refusing to extradite a mobster. :dizzy2:

Nor my grand father against the German Peace Keeping Forces in 1941… However, he still did few nasty things against them, even if the pseudo-legal Petainist State had signed an armistice…
Technically, none of the Former Colonies had the right to fight against the Metropolis, nor Spartacus to rebel against Rome… He was a slave…
The Talibans represent themselves and it is just enough…

We are discussing the law, not anecdotes. It is not enough for the Taliban to represent themselves, as they are not a state party.

In no rules of wars you will find you can’t attack and kill soldiers in R&R. In fact, it is the probably better moment to attack. No territory is proscribed from attack; that is why you have LRRP; there are no neutral zones, even in neutral countries; that is why you have SEAL.

Article III, Part I, Geneva Convention IV.

HoreTore

01-09-2010, 02:08

No, they cannot, as they are not a legitimate state party and therefore their opinions count for little or nothing. If we were fighting, say, Russia, and they decided to launch attacks in Britain, that would be another matter, and also a debatable one.

Congratulations!!

You just made just about every independence war in history illegal.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-09-2010, 02:16

Congratulations!!

You just made just about every independence war in history illegal.

Again, no.

HoreTore

01-09-2010, 02:21

Again, no.

Extremely few independence or resistance movements are considered legitimate state parties. So how can they be legitimate in your eyes, exactly?

Oh yeah; dictionaries are books explaining words, they aren't really sources of information....

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-09-2010, 02:32

Extremely few independence or resistance movements are considered legitimate state parties. So how can they be legitimate in your eyes, exactly?

I've done enough explaining for a short while. Since you're feeling witty today, why not try and figure it out? ~;)

HoreTore

01-09-2010, 02:46

I've done enough explaining for a short while.

And failed miserably, I might add.

I'll go back to the blasphemy thread then...

Brenus

01-09-2010, 08:36

"Article III, Part I, Geneva Convention IV". Well try...:beam:
Apply for non-international conflicts and in fact is for poepel giving up their weapons or injured... Not for soldiers in R&R...
But it was something to try...:laugh4:

Kralizec

01-09-2010, 10:28

"Not for soldiers in R&R..."

Is a soldier who's been undeployed though a soldier who is merely "in rest and recreation"? The British sniper doesn't have access to his guns at his own house, so it could be argued that he laid down his arms. Conversely, the Mujehadin who is suprised by ISAF troops while he's defecating in his bathroom while he left his AK-47 on the table in the living room...probably not.

Nevertheless, even under the Geneva conventions the Brits who tried to kidnap/kill the sniper are "only" entitled to humane treatment and a trial...there's no rule that applies to them saying they should be set free or anything like that.

Meneldil

01-09-2010, 11:56

I somehow fail to see why EMFM and Furunculus keep bringing the Almighty Westphalian System (TM), when pretty much everyone knows it's been outdated for at least half a century.

It's not as if the war in Irak was a complete breach of the Westphalian System, I guess heh? And the same is true for Afghanistan.
So AQ and the Talibans have to respect said system, while the Coalition Of The Willings (TM) may conveniently forget about it whenever it's needed.

Furunculus

01-09-2010, 12:58

because it is the de-facto system that has not yet been replaced, contingent sovereignty is not yet an accepted legal axiom of international relations.

while i will concede that iraq was against westphalian sovereignty, afghanistan was not, because the sovereign nation state is responsible for the actions that happen within its borders, and by hosting al-quada the nation-state of afghanistan failed in its duty not to intervene in the internal affairs of another state, and thus lost its legitimacy and therefore its right not to be intervened against in retaliation.

Fragony

01-09-2010, 15:02

rory_20_uk

01-09-2010, 15:33

Cobblers. The number of fugitives overseas are numerous and few give rise to sanctions, let alone decade long invasions. There was no moral case there, and although invasion was practically easier than some others with more to be gained, it has unsurprisingly been mired.

~:smoking:

Banquo's Ghost

01-09-2010, 15:43

while i will concede that iraq was against westphalian sovereignty, afghanistan was not, because the sovereign nation state is responsible for the actions that happen within its borders, and by hosting al-quada the nation-state of afghanistan failed in its duty not to intervene in the internal affairs of another state, and thus lost its legitimacy and therefore its right not to be intervened against in retaliation.

Although under international law, such breaches are ruled upon by the United Nations and a suitable resolution passed to confer legitimacy. The right of self-defence can be invoked to circumvent the process (which is what is claimed, since no resolution for the attack on Afghanistan was obtained) but international law regulates such claims. That's the point of law - to set boundaries on anarchy and the power of the mighty.

Otherwise the United States would be invading Bradford - which would make a great deal more sense than Afghanistan if it wants to deal with Islamic terror groups.

Furunculus

01-09-2010, 16:41

Although under international law, such breaches are ruled upon by the United Nations and a suitable resolution passed to confer legitimacy. The right of self-defence can be invoked to circumvent the process (which is what is claimed, since no resolution for the attack on Afghanistan was obtained) but international law regulates such claims. That's the point of law - to set boundaries on anarchy and the power of the mighty.

none of which i dispute, and none of which conflicts with the fact that westphalian sovereignty is the accepted legal framework around which international law is framed.

the principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state is the law of the land, and if it is not adhered to then the victim has the right to retaliate in self defence.

Kadagar_AV

01-09-2010, 17:53

The Afghanistan invasion was justified, so was Iraq at the time with the information at hand, but you can't expect it to not hit us at home when it already is at home. Terrorism is going to be our reality for a while, deal with it.

You do not see a problem with that post?

With the information at hand...

One would think that the big problem here would be the willingness to invade countries based on bad intel, not the bad intel itself.

Seamus Fermanagh

01-09-2010, 18:17

You do not see a problem with that post?

With the information at hand...

One would think that the big problem here would be the willingness to invade countries based on bad intel, not the bad intel itself.

Intelligence on such concerns is rarely, if ever, conclusive -- thus ANY such intelligence may be considered as potentially "bad." By extension, if you always took the counsel of your doubts, no country could ever act pre-emptively on any issue.

Vis-a-vis decision making, there is a distinct level of difference between 1) this info has some chance of being wrong but the threat is compelling enough where we feel we have to round up in favor of acting and 2) we're very unsure about the reliability of this information, but we have and agenda here so we'll use it as an excuse anyway. The Bush administration made it's choice under the framework of model 1), or perhaps something about 80% 1) and 20% 2), since I have to acknowledge that there was little love lost for Saddam's regime.

Yes, it was an intelligence gaffe on our parts. We paid attention to sources who had a vested interest in stating that Saddam was still actively developing WMDs and failed to corroborate properly. We also repeated our mistake of assuming that the info we were tapping into was accurate rather than representative of people telling Saddam what he wanted to hear (that he still had those weapons) so as to avoid having a helicopter "accident." We made the same mistake with the old USSR, assuming the figures on military readiness etc. being reported to the Politburo were correct and forgetting that all bureaucracies have a CYA thing going on.

EMFM:

The old international politics model is inherently flawed vis-a-vis extranational terrorism in that it codifies and attempts to regulate the actions of nation-states. NGOs that function independently don't really fit in that framework. Later interations did attempt to provide a "legal" framework for those participating in insurrections (guerilla or otherwise), but the model still presumed that the conflict would be occurring within one given nation state. Again, a group like AQ, which is more of a terrorism cartel than anything else, really doesn't fit the framework.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-09-2010, 18:25

The Afghanistan invasion was justified, so was Iraq at the time with the information at hand, but you can't expect it to not hit us at home when it already is at home. Terrorism is going to be our reality for a while, deal with it.

Indeed I expect it. But I am not going to apologize for it or accept it as OK, as others are trying to do.

Kadagar_AV

01-09-2010, 18:43

Indeed I expect it. But I am not going to apologize for it or accept it as OK, as others are trying to do.

Sooo...

England is allowed to attack terrorists in Afghanistan (remember, war on terrorism, not war on Afghanistan)...

... But terrorists are not allowed to attack anyone in england?

Seems... logical.... or?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-09-2010, 18:48

Sooo...

England is allowed to attack terrorists in Afghanistan (remember, war on terrorism, not war on Afghanistan)...

... But terrorists are not allowed to attack anyone in england?

Seems... logical.... or?

Well, no, since England isn't attacking anyone. If you substitute that with Great Britain though, then yes, it is logical.

Kadagar_AV

01-09-2010, 18:55

Well, no, since England isn't attacking anyone. If you substitute that with Great Britain though, then yes, it is logical.

Ok, so GB can attack people, but people cant attack GB?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-09-2010, 19:04

Ok, so GB can attack people, but people cant attack GB?

That I did not say.

Kadagar_AV

01-09-2010, 19:12

That I did not say.

You might wish to elaborate then...

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-09-2010, 19:19

You might wish to elaborate then...

I already have. In the last three posts I've just been repeating myself.

spmetla

01-09-2010, 19:44

I think the comparison is more like one between cops and criminals. Cops are legally allowed to look for and arrest criminals ( within tolerance of warrants and what not) but criminals are not "allowed" to do the same. This isn't to say that criminals are not capable of doing the same, they may feel they are within their right to go after cops but they legally can't.

Though this analogy has holes it is of a similar case, the international community does not recognize terrorists as legitimate players (the term non state actors comes to mind). So, the authorization of the UN and the Afghan government (of course having been being put in place by the US) for the coalition to go after terrorists in Afghanistan makes their presence and the use of force legal.

The complications are of course many, the Taliban being the ousted government of Afghanistan undoubtedly view the Afghan government as illegitimate and therefore can justify to themselves attacks against the Afghan government and its supports as legitimate. The thing is that the international community never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan (except Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the UAE).

Fragony

01-10-2010, 09:37

You do not see a problem with that post?

With the information at hand...

One would think that the big problem here would be the willingness to invade countries based on bad intel, not the bad intel itself.

Uncle Saddam himself boasted he had nuclear weapons, at the moment it was the right thing to do. I am perfectly fine with western nations intervening when they see fit, but to not expect a backlash at home is a bit silly, especially if a large amount of your citizens is muslim and you didn't exactly check on their disposition. Expecting them to fight by our rules, well what to say, they can't so they won't, they may be religious nutjobs but they aren't that stupid. Targeting 1 soldier at home has more effect than killing 10 on the battlefield, modern warfare.

Brenus

01-10-2010, 09:44

“because the sovereign nation state is responsible for the actions that happen within its borders, and by hosting al-quada the nation-state of afghanistan failed in its duty not to intervene in the internal affairs of another state, and thus lost its legitimacy and therefore its right not to be intervened against in retaliation.” Well.
Except the USA lost any right as in 1958 when condemning France for a air attack on the village of Sakiet Sidi Yousef (Tunisia) from where 300 Algerian fellagas ambushed in Algeria 50 French soldiers, killing 14, 2 injured 4 prisoners…
The USA in endorsing the Tunisian Complain in front of the UN just lost the right to use this as tool for foreign policy…:inquisitive:

“so was Iraq at the time with the information at hand” Good joke… :laugh4::laugh4:
Read Dominique de Villepin, French Ambassador at the UN, speech, or French, German and Belgium intell about this…

“We are discussing the law, not anecdotes.”
Er, if you think a national resistance against invaders is anecdote, be free to do so. But I think it is recognise by international law as right for freedom and self-determination… And the right to fight oppression… And the right to defend your lands.
“It is not enough for the Taliban to represent themselves”: Ooops…
That was the excuse NATO endorse to bomb Serbia to secure Albanians rights and former terrorist organisation KLA becoming Freedom Fighters in Kosovo (and a potential Humanitarian Disaster)…

“The government of Afghanistan was actively supporting Osama Bin Laden” So the US did against the Afghan Communist Regime (legal) supported by USSR. I don’t remember USSR bombing Washington.
Again, this doesn’t hold water…

“I already have. In the last three posts I've just been repeating myself.”
Indeed, and saying again and again absolute non-sense such: We can attack whom we want, as we want without following any rules than the limits of our power, but others can’t imagine retaliating in the means available…

Husar

01-10-2010, 12:39

Indeed, and saying again and again absolute non-sense such: We can attack whom we want, as we want without following any rules than the limits of our power, but others can’t imagine retaliating in the means available…

That's really what it comes down to, complaining on an internet forum won't stop them doing it, neither will complaints of politicians. the best thing to do would be to give the military the same powers at home that you give them abroad so they can bomb some british neighborhoods with those nasty insurgents in them, create roadblocks all over Britain and bust into anyone's home at will. I hear it's the only way to fight all those terrorists.

Furunculus

01-10-2010, 13:00

Fragony

01-10-2010, 17:36

the basis of international relations is firmly fixed around westphalian sovereignty, and it has not yet been replaced by any accepted legal construct, so ill-conceived actions by any one party do not delegitimise the accepted framework around which the rest of the nations conduct their international relations.

It's of no importance, Menendil nailed it Islam is their (radical muslim's) home. There are only two states, the land of peace, and the land of war. There is endless debate about what is what and where and what to do about when that is there, but it really comes down to that.

Furunculus

01-10-2010, 17:50

Subotan

01-10-2010, 18:22

Seeing as how one of the main criticisms of the Taliban is that they resort to terrorism to achieve their goals, how would the Polisario Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polisario_Front) be considered, seeing as they actively reject terrorism, and even sent a bouquet to Morocco when there was a terrorist attack in Casablanca?

Husar

01-11-2010, 00:50

sorry, i was talking about the civilised discourse that is international relations, not the rabid weeny'ism that is the whining of people who wish to make my country that which it is not, against my wishes.

sorry but these people are talking about rabid weeny'ism and not your civilised discourse that they ignore while you whine that they are ignoring it. Noone cares about your wishes but you*.

*And maybe your mom. ~;)

Tellos Athenaios

01-11-2010, 05:32

The old international politics model is inherently flawed vis-a-vis extranational terrorism in that it codifies and attempts to regulate the actions of nation-states. NGOs that function independently don't really fit in that framework. Later interations did attempt to provide a "legal" framework for those participating in insurrections (guerilla or otherwise), but the model still presumed that the conflict would be occurring within one given nation state. Again, a group like AQ, which is more of a terrorism cartel than anything else, really doesn't fit the framework.

As Meneldil said: the model is (very) outdated and as far as other players beside the states go quite irrelevant. Exactly how irrelevant this framework is in the context, is nicely illustrated by the salient detail that the perpetrators themselves appear to be British citizens.

Furunculus

01-11-2010, 09:38

sorry but these people are talking about rabid weeny'ism and not your civilised discourse that they ignore while you whine that they are ignoring it. Noone cares about your wishes but you*.

oh right, so we haven't been discussing how international relations works............... how strange. :idea2:

In that case, I guess we should stop all drone attacks on Wazirstan.
under westphalian sovereignty you have the principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state, which Pakistan/Wazirastan is failing to implement because it is allowing its territory to be used as a base for attacks into neighbouring nation-states.

I somehow fail to see why EMFM and Furunculus keep bringing the Almighty Westphalian System (TM), when pretty much everyone knows it's been outdated for at least half a century.

It's not as if the war in Irak was a complete breach of the Westphalian System, I guess heh? And the same is true for Afghanistan.
So AQ and the Talibans have to respect said system, while the Coalition Of The Willings (TM) may conveniently forget about it whenever it's needed.because it is the de-facto system that has not yet been replaced, contingent sovereignty is not yet an accepted legal axiom of international relations.

while i will concede that iraq was against westphalian sovereignty, afghanistan was not, because the sovereign nation state is responsible for the actions that happen within its borders, and by hosting al-quada the nation-state of afghanistan failed in its duty not to intervene in the internal affairs of another state, and thus lost its legitimacy and therefore its right not to be intervened against in retaliation.

Although under international law, such breaches are ruled upon by the United Nations and a suitable resolution passed to confer legitimacy. The right of self-defence can be invoked to circumvent the process (which is what is claimed, since no resolution for the attack on Afghanistan was obtained) but international law regulates such claims. That's the point of law - to set boundaries on anarchy and the power of the mighty.

none of which i dispute, and none of which conflicts with the fact that westphalian sovereignty is the accepted legal framework around which international law is framed.

the principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state is the law of the land, and if it is not adhered to then the victim has the right to retaliate in self defence.

“because the sovereign nation state is responsible for the actions that happen within its borders, and by hosting al-quada the nation-state of afghanistan failed in its duty not to intervene in the internal affairs of another state, and thus lost its legitimacy and therefore its right not to be intervened against in retaliation.” Well.
Except the USA lost any right as in 1958 when condemning France for a air attack on the village of Sakiet Sidi Yousef (Tunisia) from where 300 Algerian fellagas ambushed in Algeria 50 French soldiers, killing 14, 2 injured 4 prisoners…
The USA in endorsing the Tunisian Complain in front of the UN just lost the right to use this as tool for foreign policy…:inquisitive:

the basis of international relations is firmly fixed around westphalian sovereignty, and it has not yet been replaced by any accepted legal construct, so ill-conceived actions by any one party do not delegitimise the accepted framework around which the rest of the nations conduct their international relations.

yeah, it's a real mystery how i got that one so wrong!

no wait, you're a Transnational progressivist, so you must loath the idea of westphalian sovereignty. maybe.......... rather than assume you believe the discussion really didn't involve international relations, you just attempted to stifle debate about a concept which you reject, lest it gain oxygen with which to 'breathe'?

Husar

01-11-2010, 11:04

oh right, so we haven't been discussing how international relations works............... how strange. :idea2:

Indeed, I haven't seen you discuss international relations with the Taliban.

Dâriûsh

01-18-2010, 23:09

Sooo...

England is allowed to attack terrorists in Afghanistan (remember, war on terrorism, not war on Afghanistan)...

... But terrorists are not allowed to attack anyone in england?

Seems... logical.... or?

Maybe because they are, well, terrorists?

Terrorists are killers and they kill without rules and without regard to innocent civilians. They have no compassion and they have no mercy. To hell with them!

Think what you will of the occupiers in Afghanistan, God knows the collateral damage infuriates me too, but at least they are not killing indiscriminately.

Kadagar_AV

01-18-2010, 23:57

Maybe because they are, well, soldiers?

Soldiers are killers and they kill without rules and without regard to innocent civilians. They have no compassion and they have no mercy. To hell with them!

Think what you will of the freedom fighters in Afghanistan, God knows the collateral damage infuriates me too, but at least they are not killing indiscriminately.

FIFY :shame:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

01-19-2010, 00:03

FIFY :shame:

No, you didn't. You broke it. :book:

Kadagar_AV

01-19-2010, 00:04

No, you didn't. You broke it. :book:

Elaborate please :)

Dâriûsh

01-19-2010, 00:13

Elaborate please :)

I really do not think we two should debate this any further, nothing good can come of it.

If you really think people who throw acid in the faces of schoolgirls are freedom fighters, then I have nothing more to say to you.

Hax

01-19-2010, 02:36

I'm not picking sides here, but in the same way you could say "If you really think that people who torture prisoners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse) are people who have come to liberate a country, then I have nothing more to say to you".

:bow:

Fragony

01-19-2010, 03:15

Picking sides isn't really isn't that much of a necessity for seeing they are, and what they are is murderous scum. Have you already found a way with dealing with Obama raising the defense budget even higher then GBW ever did and not closing Gitmo by the way, it's so quiet up here.

Subotan

01-19-2010, 09:57

not closing Gitmo by the way, it's so quiet up here.

Partly because he's figuring out what to do with them, but mainly because the Republicans are going ape**** over any attempt to treat suspected terrorists as human beings, by bringing them and trying them on US soil.

HoreTore

01-19-2010, 10:02

Maybe because they are, well, terrorists?

Terrorists are killers and they kill without rules and without regard to innocent civilians. They have no compassion and they have no mercy. To hell with them!

That's a complete lie.

i have never understood why western leaders have the need to demonize their enemy far beyond the actual truth, there should be more than enough to get popular support without resorting to lies, overstatements and scares.

Fragony

01-19-2010, 10:20

Partly because he's figuring out what to do with them, but mainly because the Republicans are going ape**** over any attempt to treat suspected terrorists as human beings, by bringing them and trying them on US soil.

YES WE CAN

I am pleased with Obama, he fights the war against terrorism just as GBW I was worried he wouldn't. The European lefties thought the one had finally arrived, drooled all over his glory, even gave him the Nobel-price for peacelol.

I like it when they are quiet.

HoreTore

01-19-2010, 10:28

YES WE CAN

I am pleased with Obama, he fights the war against terrorism just as GBW I was worried he wouldn't. The European lefties thought the one had finally arrived, drooled all over his glory, even gave him the Nobel-price for peacelol.

I like it when they are quiet.

Uhm.....

Obama was did NOT receive the Nobel Peace Prize from neither a auropean leftie nor the european left.

You think we're all lefties up here, Frags?

Beskar

01-19-2010, 10:32

Uhm.....

Obama was did NOT receive the Nobel Peace Prize from neither a auropean leftie nor the european left.

You think we're all lefties up here, Frags?

Left is anyone not to the right of Mussolini, for Frags.

Fragony

01-19-2010, 10:33

Uhm.....

Obama was did NOT receive the Nobel Peace Prize from neither a auropean leftie nor the european left.

You think we're all lefties up here, Frags?

But of course he didn't, neither did Al Gore. The European left didn't drool all over him, there was never any change they could believe in, and I didn't have to listen to hours and hours of Obama fanboyism, and at the moment they are quite vocal.

wait

HoreTore

01-19-2010, 10:47

But of course he didn't, neither did Al Gore. The European left didn't drool all over him, there was never any change they could believe in, and I didn't have to listen to hours and hours of Obama fanboyism, and at the moment they are quite vocal.

wait

Get your facts together before you go all fanatical, Frags. Or at the very least start reading something other than nutjob blogs who doesn't know the difference between green and yellow.

The Nobel committe chairman Tornjørn Hagland - Member of Labour, on the right-wing fraction of the party, makes him about centre/centre-right.

Kaci Kullmann Five - Member of the Conservative Party.
Sissel Marie Rønbeck - Member of Labour.
Inger-Marie Ytterhorn - Member of the Progressive Party.
Ågot Valle - Member of Socialist Left.

So, we've got a committee consisting of one leftie, one moderate leftie, one centrist, one conservative and one very conservative, and the centrist member is the chairman. You still stand by your claim that he was given the prize by "the european left", Frags....?

Another interesting fact is that Ågot Valle, the leftie, was the last one to agree on Obama as the winner.

I expect your immediate humble apology, Frags. :whip:

Fragony

01-19-2010, 10:50

I expect your immediate humble apology, Frags. :whip:

I am deeply sorry Obama didn't live up to your expectation and I am sorry for not pointing it out sooner that he wouldn't :shame:

Kralizec

01-19-2010, 11:06

That's a complete lie.

i have never understood why western leaders have the need to demonize their enemy far beyond the actual truth, there should be more than enough to get popular support without resorting to lies, overstatements and scares.

Complete lie?

Dariush is not a western leader. He's an Iranian in exile.

Now I don't think that all Taliban fighters are deranged sociopaths either, but collectively, they're a vile bunch. I saw pictures of a man who wanted to vote in the last "election", the Taliban found him and cut off his nose and ears.
I suppose you feel compelled now to doubt that this was real, or point out that it's just an incident and that the mainstream Taliban would not condone such a thing at all :rolleyes:

And FYI, the majority of civilian deaths are not caused by western troops, but are deliberately killed by the Taliban.

Kadagar_AV

01-19-2010, 19:38

I really do not think we two should debate this any further, nothing good can come of it.

If you really think people who throw acid in the faces of schoolgirls are freedom fighters, then I have nothing more to say to you.

If you believe that a nation who believes in torture as a mean of information gathering, a nation who thinks its normal to send people to jail without clear accusations, a nation who believes assassination is a diplomatical tool - is any better - I have nothing more to say to you.

Might I add that if you think "hey, if you think throwing acid in peoples faces are cool than I have nothing more to say" - is a valid statement in a discussion, I must say i am sad about your ability to handle discussions.

If you would treat ANY government or even person by the worst it/ he has done, there would be very little love in the world.

And as a sidenote, ending a forum post with "believe this or discussion is over" is a very uninformed way of handling a civilized talk...

spmetla

01-19-2010, 19:43

Partly because he's figuring out what to do with them, but mainly because the Republicans are going ape**** over any attempt to treat suspected terrorists as human beings, by bringing them and trying them on US soil.

I too think it's ridiculous that they keep stamping about yelling about how Obama is bringing terrorists to the US. It's civilian court, it should be fine. If there's not enough evidence to convict the detainees then by all means release them back to their country of origin. It's what should have been done from the get go, I don't understand how anyone can believe the sensationalists that make it sound like Obama is buying them a house in your local suburbs.

That's a complete lie.

i have never understood why western leaders have the need to demonize their enemy far beyond the actual truth, there should be more than enough to get popular support without resorting to lies, overstatements and scares.

I'm pretty sure that leaders from all over the world, not just western ones demonize their enemies. I've yet to see the President go and call the Taliban Satan or little Satan. Of course some Taliban are undoubtedly intelligent people that feel they are fighting for a just cause the Taliban organization as a whole is unabashedly cruel against all that it puts within is sphere of influence.

I still will never understand why you believe that soldiers are as bad as Taliban fighters. Yes, both of them kill, and yes, both of them kill civilians. However, the former tries to avoid it while the later uses it to set an example and establish control.
Horetore, you served a short time in the Norwegian Army, right? Were you trained to kill every human you can, was the topic avoided? Where do you get the idea that soldiers still operate like the SS did during WWII? Surely the few outrages done by western soldiers hasn't convinced you that it's standard operating procedure.