Mid east

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bart.Jan @ April 10 2002,16:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe not so appropriate time but definition of terrorist in armed conflict, as I know from Czech Armed Forces, is armed human in civilan clothes. That includes even resistance (partisans,guerillas). Resistance fighters are heroes of their side but they are terrorist for enemy side. Spies (includes enemy in ours or allied uniform) have same status as terrorists.

-----

4) terrorist - (definition above) they have no rights, they can be shoot on sight, when they are captured no tribunal is needed - they can be executed immediately.

-----<span id='postcolor'>

Is it just me or does this reek of "we can kill whoever the fuck we want with no explanantion"?

Shit, I'm sure if the September 11 perpetrators are caught even they will get a trial. I don't think anyone should have the right (even during wartime) to execute prisoners with no tribunal or trial. As far as I'm concerned, these are war crimes.

[Longinius 1]

"Maybe not so appropriate time but definition of terrorist in armed conflict, as I know from Czech Armed Forces, is armed human in civilan clothes. "

Well, the Czech definition does not really matter. It is the international definition that counts when it really gets down and dirty.

If a civilian...

- displays weapons openly before and during an attack

- is lead by an established leader

- part of an organisation with internal disciplinary system

- follows the human rights

...then he is a freedom fighter and a part of a legitimate defense force, thus has to be treated according to the Geneva convention. Atleast, thats how its defined as far as I know.

[pathfinder 0]

As I don't have CNN I'll have to take your word for the falsely made video. The stuff I saw was over the course of a few days at the time. From what I was seeing the Palestinian police had to get involved and break up celebrating befor it was filmed. They failed on more than one occasion.

And if it never happend in the first place, there was no need for Egyptians to apologize for the Palestinians actions after the WTC ,on a US TV show. They said that they weren't cheering for the death of US civis. But cheering that the U.S. was taken down a notch, I saw little diffrence in either sentiment.

When It comes down to it ,I judge people by thier actions. One day I see A baby killed in it's crib by an HAMAS sniper. The next day,A young rock throwing boy is shot dead. A fully loaded dinner hall is bombed and machine gunned. The next day a Palestinian police station is blown up by copters (after the occupants are warned to get out).

Stacking evil next to evil would take forever ,as both sides have done their fare share of it. But I see that these people will always be in conflict and U.S. intervention will never work short or longterm.

It will always be true ; The voice of WAR is always louder than the voice of PEACE. The voice of peace is there, but not enough people want to hear it.

[Gorgi Knootewoot 0]

Doh, this stupid debat will probably never end. But talking about the Israelies, i wonder how the Avon-Lady is doing. I haven't heard from her in a while . She was the one that had the best topics/replies in this forum. I want her to come back

[Longinius 1]

"When It comes down to it ,I judge people by thier actions.  One day I see A baby killed in it's crib by an HAMAS sniper."

List one such occassion and I will show you three recent accounts where Palestinian kids were shot dead in their homes.

"The next day,A young rock throwing boy is shot dead."

Or a car in mid traffic, with a woman and two kids, blown up by a helicopter. Or an elderly women killed as IDF forces breach the door of her home.

"A fully loaded dinner hall is bombed and machine gunned. The next day a Palestinian police station is blown up by copters (after the occupants are warned to get out)."

And the civilian homes next door are burnt to the ground by the ensuing fire.

They are all equally shitty when it comes to this conflict. There hasnt been any good guys in this war for decades.

[Gorgi Knootewoot 0]

You started this topic, you end it

Nice thread, i think you are right.

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gorgi Knootewoot @ April 11 2002,08:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Doh, this stupid debat will probably never end. But talking about the Israelies, i wonder how the Avon-Lady is doing. I haven't heard from her in a while   . She was the one that had the best topics/replies in this forum. I want her to come back  <span id='postcolor'>

Yes, she`s been off for a long time now... Normally she showed up at least one time a day...

Haven`t been on her FAQ-site for a while, are there any updates?

[Gorgi Knootewoot 0]

No, i checked yesterday

I copied and pasted here picture, just in case.

She's such a babe.

[Bart.Jan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ April 11 2002,03:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bart.Jan @ April 10 2002,16:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe not so appropriate time but definition of terrorist in armed conflict, as I know from Czech Armed Forces, is armed human in civilan clothes. That includes even resistance (partisans,guerillas). Resistance fighters are heroes of their side but they are terrorist for enemy side. Spies (includes enemy in ours or allied uniform) have same status as terrorists.

-----

4) terrorist - (definition above) they have no rights, they can be shoot on sight, when they are captured no tribunal is needed - they can be executed immediately.

-----<span id='postcolor'>

Is it just me or does this reek of "we can kill whoever the fuck we want with no explanantion"?

Shit, I'm sure if the September 11 perpetrators are caught even they will get a trial. I don't think anyone should have the right (even during wartime) to execute prisoners with no tribunal or trial. As far as I'm concerned, these are war crimes.<span id='postcolor'>

During wartime soldiers have defined sides,as I wrote before, because of war crimes. But terrorists are not defined enemy. They are people that fight against our armed forces even they are not soldiers. During wartime,if you are soldier or civilian, you have your limited rights and duties. For civilians - don't intervene to fights, it's not your job. If civilian takes weapon and fights against us, he become terrorist without his previous rights. If terrorist is captured, commander of unit is his judge. In war soliers don't take prisoners but captives (maybe English words prisoner and captive has same meaning,but I hope you know what I mean).

If soldiers finds wounded enemy soldier, he is obliged give him first aid and take him captive. But if soldier wounds someone who is fighting against him and that person isn't wearing uniform,or he finds wounded man with weapon and without uniform, he can finish him - soldier alone decides what to do (if he hasn't special orders).

BTW: 1)Even in peace time if you are soldier standing sentry with your weapon (for example you are guarding ammunition dump) you are allowed to shoot intruder (no offence Intruder ) if he doesn't obey your call - and if you kill him you are not manslayer but soldier who serves well.

2) When police or special police foces are interfering against suspect (or worse against terrorists) they are allowed to shoot everyone with weapon that doesn't obey their call - they can not know if someone is criminal, lone cop, lucky escaped hostage or hostage with weapon glued to hand .

In armed conflict it's similar but without call.

[Bart.Jan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 11 2002,07:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Maybe not so appropriate time  but definition of terrorist in armed conflict, as I know from Czech Armed Forces, is armed human in civilan clothes. "

Well, the Czech definition does not really matter. It is the international definition that counts when it really gets down and dirty.

If a civilian...

- displays weapons openly before and during an attack

- is lead by an established leader

- part of an organisation with internal disciplinary system

- follows the human rights

...then he is a freedom fighter and a part of a legitimate defense force, thus has to be treated according to the Geneva convention. Atleast, thats how its defined as far as I know.<span id='postcolor'>

Geneva convention :

art.13 The present Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories:

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

    (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

    (b)that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a

    distance;

    ( c)that of carrying arms openly;

    (d)that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

----

I choose for (2).

[Longinius 1]

"During wartime soldiers have defined sides,as I wrote before, because of war crimes. But terrorists are not defined enemy. They are people that fight against our armed forces even they are not soldiers. During wartime,if you are soldier or civilian, you have your limited rights and duties. For civilians - don't intervene to fights, it's not your job. If civilian takes weapon and fights against us, he become terrorist without his previous rights."

Wrong. A civilian has a right to take up arms against an aggressor. Provided he carries it openly and is lead by an official leader, he is protected by International Law. He is a resistance fighter and not a terrorist. Check the Geneva convention for starters.

"If terrorist is captured, commander of unit is his judge."

Wrong again.

"In war soliers don't take prisoners but captives (maybe English words prisoner and captive has same meaning,but I hope you know what I mean).

If soldiers finds wounded enemy soldier, he is obliged give him first aid and take him captive. But if soldier wounds someone who is fighting against him and that person isn't wearing uniform,or he finds wounded man with weapon and without uniform, he can finish him - soldier alone decides what to do (if he hasn't special orders)"

Wrong again. Basic human rights and the Geneva convention still applies. No international laws support the sumeric (sp?) execution of people, suspected terrorists or not.

"BTW: 1)Even in peace time if you are soldier standing sentry with your weapon (for example you are guarding ammunition dump) you are allowed to shoot intruder (no offence Intruder  ) if he doesn't obey your call - and if you kill him you are not manslayer but soldier who serves well."

Dont know which country you are from but in most civilised nations lethal force is only allowed when someones life is in danger. This goes for soldiers to. They may only shoot you if life is threatened or you appear to be on a sabotage mission. If this was not the case, we would have seen many dead Green Peace activists by now.

"2) When police or special police foces are interfering against suspect (or worse against terrorists) they are allowed to shoot everyone with weapon that doesn't obey their call - they can not know if someone is criminal, lone cop, lucky escaped hostage or hostage with weapon glued to hand  .

In armed conflict it's similar but without call."

Untrue again. Cops can't just shoot anyone with a gun. They can shoot anyone with a gun that poses a threat, but that is different. Cops are allowed to shoot to protect life and property. They cant just shoot you for holding a gun. Or rather, they can, but they will be tried and convicted for it.

I wonder, where are you from? Have you read the Geneva convention or heard of basic human rights?

[Bart.Jan 0]

To Longinius:

I added art.13 (6) to my previous post before I noticed your one. It's like any law - depends on situation. Human rights and war is hard to mix (everybody has right to life).

About commander as judge in armed conflict and about armed sentry - maybe another soldier can say something about it.

About police and armed sentry: I wrote they have right to shoot anybody that doesn't obey their call. (by call I mean : "Drop your weapon !" or "Police ! Stop or I'll shoot !" ->something like that) If you obey call you are safe.

BTW in armed conflict soldiers doesn't report : "Suspected enemy spoted" but "Enemy spoted".

[Longinius 1]

"About commander as judge in armed conflict and about armed sentry - maybe another soldier can say something about it."

No need for anyone to say anything. Sumeric executions are illegal, according to international law. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial.

"About police and armed sentry: I wrote they have right to shoot anybody that doesn't obey their call. (by call I mean : "Drop your weapon !" or "Police ! Stop or I'll shoot !" ->something like that) If you obey call you are safe."

No, they dont have the right to shoot just because you refuse to obey. They can only shoot, legally, if you threaten their or anyone elses life.

"BTW in armed conflict soldiers doesn't report : "Suspected enemy spoted" but "Enemy spoted"."

They report "Enemy spoted" when they have confirmed that it is indeed an enemy. Enemy is anyone who threatens the objectives of the soldiers in question.

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 11 2002,15:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"About police and armed sentry: I wrote they have right to shoot anybody that doesn't obey their call. (by call I mean : "Drop your weapon !" or "Police ! Stop or I'll shoot !" ->something like that) If you obey call you are safe."

No, they dont have the right to shoot just because you refuse to obey. They can only shoot, legally, if you threaten their or anyone elses life.<span id='postcolor'>

You are Swedish, but have not made military service with 'skyddsvakts utbildning'?

During the examination in the 'skyddsvakts prov' one was supposed to do like (I think it was like this, it was 8 years ago):

1. Call 'Halt'.

2. Call 'Halt or I will shoot sharp'.

3. Fire warning shot.

4. Fire one shot in one of the trespassers legs.

If after shooting at the leg he becomes violent one will have the right to self defence, and also maybe fire in the other leg if he/she continues to the guarded object I suppose (there were not real rules called for after the 4 above).

[Longinius 1]

Yes, I have indeed knowledge of the proper procedures for a swedish military sentry and nowhere as far as I am aware is it mentioned "shoot to kill". Warning shots, yes. Shooting in someones leg, yes. But never to kill (except ofcourse in war). A Swedish military sentry is not authorised to use lethal force (unless, ofcourse, it is necessary to protect his or his comrades life or the objective he is guarding).

Furthermore, it is such a cumbersone legal process anyway that few will be willing to take that shot in peace time, because they CAN get in trouble. They'd rather club the person to the ground. There have been numerous occasions when shots have been warranted, but few times anyone has actually shot.

[Pukko 0]

Ya, its just a play with words i guess: shoot to kill or shoot to wound.

"They'd rather club the person to the ground"

That really sounds both legally and situation based more dangerous. Doubt I would ever risk beating someone down - I might kill the person or he/she might kill me.

[Bart.Jan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"About commander as judge in armed conflict and about armed sentry - maybe another soldier can say something about it."

No need for anyone to say anything. Sumeric executions are illegal, according to international law. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes sumeric (does it mean something like spontaneous ?) executions are illegal. Commander has right to command execution because he has rights as judge and there is small war-court (it can hapen that he is only member). Not from position of stronger but from position of law. In some cases he can order execution of his soldiers (desertion,cowardice in fight,war crime).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"About police and armed sentry: I wrote they have right to shoot anybody that doesn't obey their call. (by call I mean : "Drop your weapon !" or "Police ! Stop or I'll shoot !" ->something like that) If you obey call you are safe."

No, they dont have the right to shoot just because you refuse to obey. They can only shoot, legally, if you threaten their or anyone elses life.<span id='postcolor'>

About regular policemen I'm not sure. But for special police forces,like swat, is everybody threat. If you are doing some suspect moves you can be shoot. They shoots first then they asks. Their job is not to shoot anybody but to stabilize situation - it means nobody can be threat (you are not threat if you are laying or kneeling down on the ground and you have hands on place where they can see it). After their job is done mostly regular policemen come and do their job.

Another example are police snipers. If they have "green" they are allowed to shoot. They can accidentally shoot someone else they are ordered,shoot someone that doing some suspect moves and they can shoot even surrending suspect - it's risk of their profession - it doesn't do them criminals. (by word can I mean it can happened,not they can decide). Snipers have big trouble if they shoot somebody without permision to fire ("green").

About armed military sentry : they have not their weapons for

parade. They are allowed use them against intruder. Area whitch is guarded by sentry generally got tall fence or wall with barbed wire and with definetly with signs "Military area" and warning about armed sentry. So if someone is in area (he become intruder) he must knows risk of his behaviour. Soldiers are not allowed shoot everything that moves but they have strict instructions haw to proceed and they should not aim upper part of body (but not much soldiers are good shooters under stress from sentry). They has order try to not kill but no don't kill at all cost.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"BTW in armed conflict soldiers doesn't report : "Suspected enemy spoted" but "Enemy spoted"."

They report "Enemy spoted" when they have confirmed that it is indeed an enemy. Enemy is anyone who threatens the objectives of the soldiers in question.<span id='postcolor'>

In armed conflict (I didn't mean peacekeeping operations) every soldier knows position of his and allied units and its advance,knows which kinds of units are operating in area and knows aprox position and advance of belligerent. So if someone shoot to his direction or there is someone on place where no one from friendly units shoul be he mostly report "enemy". That's way how friendly-fire and collateral dammage hapens.

[Major Fubar 0]

Bart Jan, I don't care what country you are from, captured prisoners (or captives) cannot be summarily executed after capture just on the word of the local CO.

To say otherwise is wrong, by every international law and moral standard.

Yes, he may have the right to execute his own men for treason/desertion, but NOT enemy captives.

Any army that says otherwise are barbarians, no better than the terrorists you despise.

Maybe this type of treatment was the standars back in the Crusades, but I'd like to think the world has evolved a little since then.

A soldier certainly has every right to defend himself, but there are very strict international laws about the "rules of engagement". Hell, I know for a fact in a training video I saw (About the conflict in Somalia) US peace keeping forces were not allowed to shoot people who have just thrown grenades/bombs at them (freedom fighters/terrorist/resistance). If they have no more grenades to throw, they are not a threat. This is a fact, in the training excercise two soldiers fired at the grenade throwers after they had thrown the grenades. Their Officer told that that under international law what they did was wrong. You mightn't want to believe me, but it is a fact.

Unless you can show me a document that says otherwise, captives in wartime may not be summarily executed on the say so of an Officer. And even if you produce such a document (which I doubt), it is morally unacceptable.

If I were a soldier, captured or wounded in battle, I would like to think that my captors didn't have the right just to take me out behind a tent a put a bullet in the back of my head.

War is an ugly, ugly business, but agreements like the Geneva convention are there for a very good reason.

[Longinius 1]

"Yes sumeric (does it mean something like spontaneous ?) executions are illegal. Commander has right to command execution because he has rights as judge and there is small war-court (it can hapen that he is only member). Not from position of stronger but from position of law. In some cases he can order execution of his soldiers (desertion,cowardice in fight,war crime)."

Sumeric (sp) means "without a trial" basically.

"About regular policemen I'm not sure. But for special police forces,like swat, is everybody threat."

SWAT forces are called in to eliminate lethal threats. They are called in when the situation has allready escalated above the norm. Therefor it is very likely that any move the target makes is to be considered hostile. The target has been given warnings and time to surrender. After the SWAT gets into action its all about the take down. Its a different scenario than regular law enforcement.

"Another example are police snipers. If they have "green" they are allowed to shoot. They can accidentally shoot someone else they are ordered,shoot someone that doing some suspect moves and they can shoot even surrending suspect - it's risk of their profession - it doesn't do them criminals. (by word can I mean it can happened,not they can decide). Snipers have big trouble if they shoot somebody without permision to fire ("green")."

Yes, shooting a surrendering suspect is a crime. Shooting a innocent bystander is not a crime but it will likely be the end of their careers, or atleast a noticable setback.

"About armed military sentry : they have not their weapons for parade. They are allowed use them against intruder. Area whitch is guarded by sentry generally got tall fence or wall with barbed wire and with definetly with signs "Military area" and warning about armed sentry. So if someone is in area (he become intruder) he must knows risk of his behaviour. Soldiers are not allowed shoot everything that moves but they have strict instructions haw to proceed and they should not aim upper part of body (but not much soldiers are good shooters under stress from sentry). They has order try to not kill but no don't kill at all cost."

Yes, exactly what I said. This means they do not have the right to shoot and kill just anyone who happens to strole along, refusing to do as they are told.

Have you done any military or law enforcement service? If so, where?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I am slightly confused about the opinion some people have. As Longinius said it is not a question of legal of illegal act but of moral values. The Geneva convention are not statues made up by a superior court but a simple definition (collection) of moral senses that anyone should have (by education and hopefully to some extent also by human emotion).

I am astonished by a very extremist post I read on the last page. It appears to me that some people would solve a dangerous situation by chosing the most radical solution inside of legality.

"either he dies or you" is one of those nonesense sayings that I think should not be taken as a measure in war. You might be surprised to hear that but I am convinced that it is worse to shoot an inocent than to be shot. Now that is a purely moral approach, therefore theory, and practical life does differ from that. But if we dont try to keep those two things together: moral and reality! than we are again only an inch away from genocides!

[eskimo jackson 0]

2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 05 2002,002)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes and no. Killing Arafat will not bring peaqce by itself but it will definitrely remove the biggest obstacle to Peace that exists so far.<span id='postcolor'>

hm, and killing rabin brought back war . who killed him ? right .. now i remember.

murdering arafat is the single biggest mistake israel could make, imho. he would be martyr and the 'terrorism' would be even worse.

elect a new goverment in , get rid off the right wing hardliners and religious nutters. thats the biggest obstacle

[Bart.Jan 0]

To Major Fubar :

I didn't write that captured soldiers or civilans can be executed. I wrote terrorists can be executed. I paste two paragraphs from Geneva convention (page [59] of this topic). If I choose (2) then Geneva convenction doesn't make me treat with terrorist like with prisoner of war. Only moral rules and conscience can CO stop from ordering execution. Humans rights says : no one can be tortured and with nobody can be acting violently or cruely,no one can be punish inhumanely or  derogatory. So execution of terrorist is not war-crime, it's moral-crime. But whole armed conflicts are immoral.

Every time there are atrocities on both sides of conflict, in my opinion. In present days media creates heroes and beasts (in the past winner created them). There is nothing good on armed conflict - but laws makes killing in armed conflicts easier.

In wartime there is always belligerent or enemy against us. Goverment-propaganda doesn't tell you that you are going to shoot,knife,stab,burn,bash humans.

Most things I'm write here about are on edge of law. But this is the way I'll choose if I'll must.

It's cruel,but like Pukko posted : </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ya, its just a play with words i guess: shoot to kill or shoot to wound<span id='postcolor'>

Generaly all laws are game with words - even criminal can win if he has luck or good lawyer. War laws are created that you can be criminal who killed several people or you can be hero who crushed the enemy terrorist unit - it depens on the judge, political situation, your connections with goverment and on media (even there are independent courts and free media).

[Longinius 1]

"Only moral rules and conscience can CO stop from ordering execution. Humans rights says : no one can be tortured and with nobody can be acting violently or cruely,no one can be punish inhumanely or derogatory. So execution of terrorist is not war-crime, it's moral-crime. But whole armed conflicts are immoral."

Human rights are also against capitol punishments and people getting convicted without a fair trial. This also applies to terrorists. You cannot execute anyone you want just because you feel like it. Commanding Officers are not above the law.

Do you have any military background at all?

[ralphwiggum 6]

60pages,

sticky.

this is a new record! no spam, just intellectual discussion!

[Hilandor 1]

yes this topic deserves pinning for its sheer size, and lack of flaming