Would you be a suicide bomber?

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
This is not my own viewpoint of course, just the general principle on which International Relations is supposed to operate.

"supposed to" being the operative words there, eh Dave.

A more honest response would appear to be that "I was only following orders" is fine for the victors. The losers have done wrong simply by losing...

jc

Atreides

You see I've nothing wrong with soldiers, just isreali soldiers are murdering bastards with no reguard for no jewish life

Éomer of Rohan

Very true jc, and very reminiscent of Old Thucy. The Melian Dialogue and the "Strong doing as they will, the weak as they must."

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
What I have learned from World Politics theory is that soldiers have the inviolable legitimacy of the state behind them and terrorists don't and therein lies the difference - by the UN definition of sovereignty, soldiers are effectively allowed to do as their legal and internationally recognised government tells them.

A very dangerous statement to make. When a friend became a lieutenant in the RDF, he swore "to obey all legal orders", while an American friend had to swore "to obey all orders". If the American breaches the Geneva Convention, he can be held personally liable - as an officer he cannot claim "I was only following orders" (officers are meant to know better than enlisted men, but that doesn't give them carte blanche either).

Éomer of Rohan

I know it is a dangerous statement but it really underlines, as you point out, the hypocrisy inherent in the interpretation of international affairs.