Falluja tactics - Bush people, justify this.

shltter

thats a lie sand this is the quote that i objected to you refering to the resistace in fallujah as terrorists

Sand wrote:

Sorry, isnt that what theyve beent trying for the past year or so - to reach some sort of accomadation with the terrorists in Fallujah? Hell, the marines are probably being shot at by the same weapons they gave the "compromise force" to police Fallujah last time when your logic prevailed and a deal with the terrorists was attempted rather than going in and winning. All thats happened is that Fallujah became a base for the terrorists to strike at efforts to normalise Iraq elsewhere.

.

the reason why i object to the term terrorist is that it is so broad it is open to be used to describe any liberation struggle or any warfare


while i dont consider the d day landings as terrorism i would consider the bombing of dresden as terrorism part of the same war carried out by the same side does that mean that the war against the nazi s was wrong no

the dropping of atomic weapons on japan was terrorism does that mean that
that the american war against japan was wrong no


the american invasion of Iraq fits the criteria of terrorism

shltter

Sand wrote:

No you didnt.
What I asked (twice) was

"So whats the difference between war and terrorism?"

The clear and simple answer you gave, without qualification, was

"Nothing"

Now either you believe that war=terrorism by another name, or you were lying when you answered that you believed there was no difference between war and terrorism. Its very simple, Im not putting any words in your mouth whatsoever. Youve stated you dont see any difference between terrorism and war, so the participants in a war must be the same as the participants in an act of terrorism. Isnt there a sig floating around here quoting ghandi where he argues the dead dont care if they were killed in the course of a good or evil act? Theyre just as dead.

Or, and this is a long shot - your definition of terrorism is a load of bollocks. A circular definition thats elastic enough to fit anyone whose acts you dont approve of so you can call them names. When your definition is applied to people you do approve of - like the men who fought on D-Day - you suddenly start backpeddling and inventing other qualifications after the fact.



Read again.



Nope, its demonstrating the bollocks that is this common idea floating around the forum that war=terrorism, or even worse terrorism=acts of terror.

I dont expect the advocates of such rubbish to accept that they need to tighten up their definitions or qualify their statements a bit more, but perhaps theyll admit to themselves if no one else that they need to be a little less convenient with their views.



See what I mean?

Do you know where all this came from? This came from me stating that there was a difference between that marine shooting a suspected suicide bomber and that terrorist shooting a bound charity worker! This was disputed! The marine is being investigated to see if he broke rules of engagement/geneva convention whilst that terrorist was just doing an average days work. But theres no difference between war and terrorism? No difference between the marines and the terrorists theyre fighting? One organisation that investigates suspected murders by its troops and another that endorses them? If the marine did murder a wounded enemy then hes viewed as a crinimal ( or a democratic party presidential candidate boom tish ) but if a terrorist does it no one expects anything better. Thats the difference between war and terrorism. There are rules in war, and there are none in terrorism.

basically you want to define what terrorism is
that is the problem this is the definition that someone else posted

terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


now the american invasion fits every one of these criteria so does that not make america terrorists

terrorism as you understand it is an insult to describe any violence you dont agree with


answer this question is the attacking of american military personel terrorism or legitamate military action by a resistance movement

nobody here condones the murder of an aid worker that is a criminal act
but you can not label anyone who fights the americans as terrorists because some group of lunatics killed an innocent woman no more than you could call the allied soldiers on d day terrorists even though they belonged to the same side as those people who fire bombed Dresden or who would eventually drop atomic weapons on japan

A Dub in Glasgo

Sand wrote:

No you didnt.
What I asked (twice) was

"So whats the difference between war and terrorism?"

The clear and simple answer you gave, without qualification, was

"Nothing"

---

Snip

---

This is my last post to you as I have grass that is growing and I need to watch it. I have no time for people who lie.

You can believe what you want, you can put all sorts of your own spin on things, you can try and make up what other people say but that does not change my opinion that the US invasion of Iraq is terrorism. You may not like the fact that other people think differently to you (shock horror) but tough excrement. Accept it and move on.

A Dub in Glasgo

Nuttzz wrote:

So what was the carpet bombing of Dresden etc then?

A terrorist act

Moriarty

His problem isn't with your opinions par sé, it's with the apparent inconsistencies and hypocracy in your opinions.

A Dub in Glasgo

Moriarty wrote:

His problem isn't with your opinions par sé, it's with the apparent inconsistencies and hypocracy in your opinions.

Show me the hypocrisy?

Moriarty

Calling military action war when you agree with it and terrorisim when you don't, irrespective of what is actually carried out.

A Dub in Glasgo

Moriarty wrote:

Calling military action war when you agree with it and terrorisim when you don't, irrespective of what is actually carried out.

Erm... Is this not exactly what the majority of people do? Do you?

Military action against military targets is not terrorism. Military action against civilian targets or action that instills terror or fear in the population is terrorism.

What part do you think the hypocrisy comes into it and do you see yourself as a hypocrite as well?

Redleslie2

The only reason that marine is getting investigated is because he got caught.

passive

if i shot someone in the face for making stupid arguments i would not be investigated either...unless i was caught.

do you have a point?

A Dub in Glasgo

I believe his point went something like this:

The US marine would not have been facing investigation at all if he was not caught on camera and the footage not shown around the world.

I agree with that analysis

A Dub in Glasgo

The International Committee of the Red Cross has issued a damning statement calling for both sides in Iraq to observe dignity and humanity

As hostilities continue in Falluja and elsewhere, every day seems to bring news of yet another act of utter contempt for the most basic tenet of humanity: the obligation to protect human life and dignity. This week it was the killing of a wounded fighter and of yet another hostage – humanitarian worker Margaret Hassan – that shocked the world. Like any other armed conflict, this one is subject to limits, and they must be respected at all times.

For the parties to this conflict, complying with international humanitarian law is an obligation, not an option. There is an absolute prohibition on the killing of persons who are not taking active part in the hostilities, or have ceased to do so. It is also prohibited to torture them or to subject them to any form of inhuman, humiliating or degrading treatment. Furthermore, the parties to the conflict must provide adequate medical care for the wounded – friend or foe – on the battlefield or allow them to be taken elsewhere for treatment. They must do everything possible to help civilians caught up in the fighting obtain the basics of survival such as food, water and health care. The taking of hostages, whether Iraqi or foreign, is forbidden in all circumstances. If these rules or any other applicable rules of international humanitarian law are violated, the persons responsible must be held accountable for their actions.

Regrettably, recent events have again shown just how difficult it has become for neutral, independent and impartial humanitarian organizations to assist and protect the victims of the conflict in Iraq. Once again, the International Committee of the Red Cross appeals for everything possible to be done to allow such organizations to come to the aid of the thousands of Iraqis who are suffering."

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/66VK3T?OpenDocument

Moriarty

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Erm... Is this not exactly what the majority of people do? Do you?

You're justifying a position on the premise that it's 'what the majority' think?

No, it's not what I do. I look at what's actually being carried out and then make an assesment. It wouldn't matter on whether I agree or disagree with the overall military or political objectives.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Military action against military targets is not terrorism. Military action against civilian targets or action that instills terror or fear in the population is terrorism.

So if military action results in fear in any of the population in a theatre of war, it's automatically terrorism? Would you agree that this definition would then classify just about every single military action in history as terrorism? Where does the intimidation/coercion part of terrorism fit into a military action?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

do you see yourself as a hypocrite as well?

I try not to be a hyprocrite. I'm open to people calling me on it if they think I am though.

A Dub in Glasgo

Moriarty wrote:

You're justifying a position on the premise that it's 'what the majority' think?

No that is a statement - nothing more nothing less. I do not use it to justify anything

No, it's not what I do. I look at what's actually being carried out and then make an assesment. It wouldn't matter on whether I agree or disagree with the overall military or political objectives.

Well done. Was the IRA attack at Warrenpoint a military action or a terrorist action? Is the mortar attack by Iraqi insurgents on a US military base a military action or a terrorist action?

So if military action results in fear in any of the population in a theatre of war, it's automatically terrorism? Would you agree that this definition would then classify just about every single military action in history as terrorism? Where does the intimidation/coercion part of terrorism fit into a military action?

In the examples given, D-Day landing is not a terrorist action but carpet bombing Dresden is. I have explicitly said what I believe a terrorist action is.

I try not to be a hyprocrite. I'm open to people calling me on it if they think I am though.

Well done. BTW, I did not call you one

chill

To follow down the path of semantic pedanticism....

I would suggest that terrorism is where the sole or main activity in a war or battle between two parties is aimed specifically at civilians and the terrorising of same.

It is meaningless to classify 'actions' invididually, only collectively imho. The Warrenpoint action was a terrorist act because those who perpetrated it were 'terrorists' due the fact that their main activity was the inflicting of death and destruction on civilians throughout their existence.

The action on Dresden was not a terrorist action for the same reason, despite it's extremely dubious moral nature.

chill

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The International Committee of the Red Cross has issued a damning statement calling for both sides in Iraq to observe dignity and humanity

This statement seems very biased and dubious to me and will only contribute to the lessening reputation of the International Red Cross.

They slap criticisms on both sides despite the clear and evident difference in the day to day standards of activity of both sides. And to compare those of the insurgents to those of the armies is an utter repugnant nonsense.

In addtion, they are in a poor position to apply effective criticism considering the fact that they are not there on the ground to witness such activity.

shltter

chill wrote:

To follow down the path of semantic pedanticism....

I would suggest that terrorism is where the sole or main activity in a war or battle between two parties is aimed specifically at civilians and the terrorising of same.

It is meaningless to classify 'actions' invididually, only collectively imho. The Warrenpoint action was a terrorist act because those who perpetrated it were 'terrorists' due the fact that their main activity was the inflicting of death and destruction on civilians throughout their existence.

The action on Dresden was not a terrorist action for the same reason, despite it's extremely dubious moral nature.

this is nonsense the IRA's prefered main targets were always military however as the conflict continued it bacame harder and harder to attack military targets
the other main target for the IRA was commercial as the view was that Britain was quite prepared to accept soldiers being killed at the rate the IRA was capable of killing them , however if you hit them in the pocket that this would get their attention the IRA main aim was not to deliberately try to kill
civilians if it had been there would have been alot more people dead than there was

the firebombing of dresden was terrorist as the sole aim was to kill civilians
and in doing so to demoralise the german people there was no military element in this attack

your basic arguement seems to be that if you agree with a particular side in a conflict that no matter what they do during that conflict even the deliberate killing of women and children does not qualify as terrorism for no other reason than you think they are the good guys

each action has to be judged on its own merits

Redleslie2

chill wrote:

The Warrenpoint action was a terrorist act because those who perpetrated it were 'terrorists' due the fact that their main activity was the inflicting of death and destruction on civilians throughout their existence.

No it wasn't.

shltter wrote:

this is nonsense the IRA's main targets were always military

No they weren't.

Redleslie2

chill wrote:

This statement seems very biased and dubious to me and will only contribute to the lessening reputation of the International Red Cross.

Yeah how much lower can this clearly politicised organisation go? :mad: Why is it called the "Red" Cross, why not the Polka Dot Cross or just The Cross ???

shltter

Redleslie2 wrote:

No they weren't.

you cut the line off so it looks out of context however i should have added

prefered main target

i will edit now


the main point was that the IRA did generally not try to kill civilians

Redleslie2

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I believe his point went something like this:

The US marine would not have been facing investigation at all if he was not caught on camera and the footage not shown around the world.

Yes that was my point, I thought it would have been fairly obvious but you can't underestimate common ignorance. Sign of the times really. There were no investigations into the deaths of 600 people in Falluja in April or the other 100,000 civilians that have been shoved into this loony meatgrinder. German troops accused of the Malmedy massacre got the death sentence at Nuremberg for doing much the same thing as that marine.

shltter

Redleslie2 wrote:

Yes that was my point, I thought it would have been fairly obvious but you can't underestimate common ignorance. Sign of the times really. There were no investigations into the deaths of 600 people in Falluja in April or the other 100,000 civilians that have been shoved into this loony meatgrinder. German troops accused of the Malmedy massacre got the death sentence at Nuremberg for doing much the same thing as that marine.

in fairness none of the death sentences were carried out
and all of them were released from prison by 1957
and the trial was not at nuremburg it was held in Dachau

the other main difference would be that american soldiers did not have a history of blowing themselves up so the nazis could not argue that they tought their lives maybe at risk

Redleslie2

shltter wrote:

in fairness none of the death sentences were carried out
and all of them were released from prison by 1957

I know, but it's beside the point.

and the trial was not at nuremburg it was held in Dachau

I'm wrong there. Ta for that.

the other main difference would be that american soldiers did not have a history of blowing themselves up so the nazis could not argue that they tought their lives maybe at risk

They could argue that they saw their buddies get killed or that they couldn't take prisoners because their mission was critical, and if I remember rightly, the americans were left alone after being captured initially and another bunch of germans came along and shot them, so they could argue that they thought they just found a combat unit. All sorts of excuses.

That whole booby trapped corpses stuff sounds like standard propaganda rubbish to me.

Nuttzz

Redleslie2 wrote:

That whole booby trapped corpses stuff sounds like standard propaganda rubbish to me.

Actually its a pretty standard tactic, the VC used it go great affect in Vietnam

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6504719/

From AP

"“We’re Iraqis and they’re Iraqis and we want to get them,” said Mohammed Ali, a 32-year-old farmer helping remove bodies. “It’s in our religion. The rules say that relatives or families or Arabs should help them.”

Gagging amid the overpowering stench of rotting flesh, the Iraqis had to take special care because of the danger that insurgents have booby-trapped some bodies with explosives. On one stoop, the Iraqis pushed over a corpse and a grenade rolled out of its pocket. The weapon didn’t detonate, but Marines quickly hurried the workers away. "

Redleslie2

Nuttzz wrote:

Actually its a pretty standard tactic, the VC used it go great affect in Vietnam

Ah, that explains stuff like My Lai then.

On one stoop, the Iraqis pushed over a corpse and a grenade rolled out of its pocket. The weapon didn’t detonate, but Marines quickly hurried the workers away. "

Maybe, just maybe, the pin was still in? Because he was carying the bloody thing before he got killed? No reports of anybody being blown up by booby traps while collecting corpses then. How queer.

Apparently the american troops are using their night vision equipment to see through women's clothes. :mad: It's truuuuuue.

shltter

Redleslie2 wrote:

I know, but it's beside the point..

but your original post left the impression that they had been executed which if you knew they had not was misleading at least

Redleslie2 wrote:

They could argue that they saw their buddies get killed or that they couldn't take prisoners because their mission was critical, and if I remember rightly, the americans were left alone after being captured initially and another bunch of germans came along and shot them, so they could argue that they thought they just found a combat unit. All sorts of excuses.

That whole booby trapped corpses stuff sounds like standard propaganda rubbish to me.

completely different the americans are not arguing either of these. A critical mission is not an excuse for murdering prisioners the second excuse was one excuse actually put forward but rejected


I'am against the war but any fair reading of this situation would at least give you a reasonable doubt about the motivation of the marine
if they were just killing wounded why would they leave an iraqi witness why not kill them all
even the words of the marine he is faking it surely means he tought that Iraqi may have been some kind of threat

I'am not saying that this kind of thing is not going on I just dont think that this is an open and shut case

Nuttzz

Redleslie2 wrote:

Ah, that explains stuff like My Lai then.

what the funk are you on about, all I am saying is that this is not the first war where bodies were booby trapped........read it again "its a pretty standard tactic"

/edit booby trapped bodies where used in WWII, Korea and in Vietnam

as for no reports of anyone been killed by a booby trapped body try
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/15/marine.probe/

this whole war is a mess, what that marine did was very wrong, I dont see how shooting someone in the head would protect you from a booby trap but dont start twisting peoples comments in this thread because you "think" they disagree with you.....

Moriarty

Nuttzz wrote:

.. I dont see how shooting someone in the head would protect you from a booby trap ..

Perhaps because it would stop the wounded guy from triggering the grenade/explosives/whatever? You know, the same principle as a suicide bomber driving towards a checkpoint being shot at.

Nuttzz

Moriarty wrote:

Perhaps because it would stop the wounded guy from triggering the grenade/explosives/whatever? You know, the same principle as a suicide bomber driving towards a checkpoint being shot at.

right, but surely you would have the booby trap set in such a way as to go off regardless whether you were alive or not?

Moriarty

I don't rightly know. I'd presume you'd want some control over it so that it doesn't blow up prematurely when you itch yourself. I honestly suspect it has a major part to play though.