NationStates Jolt Archive

According to the Geneva Conventions, to be considered a combatant, you must:


be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates
have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
carry arms openly
conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war


Which of the following do you think are not combatants: Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iraqi insurgents, Hamas, Hezbollah, and IDF troops.

Coalition troops.

Coalition troops.

Which criteria do you think they don't meet?

The "recognize at a distance" pretty much excludes anyone that is in a military using camouflage...

But if you don't do any of those things (and you're fighting) you're considard a spy and can be executed. So I'll go for combattants so we can hold them for life. LOOP HOLE! Execution or a life centance, take your pick.

The "recognize at a distance" pretty much excludes anyone that is in a military using camouflage...

I think the purpose of that is to distinguish combatants from civilians. If you are wearing camoflauge, you are easily recognizable as a soldier and not a civilian, even though you may be hard to spot. You are not trying to blend in with the civilian population -- just your surroundings.

Which criteria do you think they don't meet?



be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates
have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
carry arms openly
conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war



That.

That.

Which law or custom of war don't they follow?

Which law or custom of war don't they follow?

That whole thing about treating Prisoners of War humanely.

maybe you should put a definition of terrorists on here too. and why the distinction between combatants and terrorists? they aren't wholly distinct.

id have to disagree with the geneva convention definition of combatants actually. it discounts practically any guerrila movement there's ever been. id say anyone fighting in a warzone is a combatant whether they advertise the fact or not. and terrorism is a technique utilised by those with uniform as much as those without.

That depends in what sort of operation. Hamas members wear their colours and emblems at parades, and also occasionally when Israeli troops come visit the refugee camps.
They don't wear them when members go to blow themselves up.

Same goes for Hezbollah.

"The Taliban" is a religious movement, I don't even know what you're talking about here.

AQ doesn't necessarily have any troops. The gunmen who fought the Coalition in Afghanistan might not fall in the normal categories you listed, but they could fall under "militias", which are recognised by the Convention.

Same goes for insurgents in Iraq.

And the IDF is a regular army as well, with emblems, uniforms and so on. Sometimes the question whether they follow the rules of war is decidedly iffy, but the rest of the criteria - no problem.

I think the purpose of that is to distinguish combatants from civilians. If you are wearing camoflauge, you are easily recognizable as a soldier and not a civilian, even though you may be hard to spot. You are not trying to blend in with the civilian population -- just your surroundings.German military dressed as civilians in Afghanistan. I'm sure the American or British forces in Iraq would do the same under certain circumstances...

Coalition troops.

Troll as usual.

US army and All of the above.. Which criteria do you think they don't meet?
.
4th criteria

I think the purpose of that is to distinguish combatants from civilians.
The Geneva Convention was written in a different time.

Irregular warfare was considered ungentlemanlike and was thus not covered. That's the gist of it.
However, every army these days uses irregular warfare, no army marches up and down the battlefield, plain for everyone to see. So really, the Convention needs a revision anyways.

Troll as usual.

Good sir, you know not enough to judge.

US army and All of the above..
.
4th criteria

Troll as usual.

Good sir, you know not enough to judge.

You call Coalition Troop terrorists, you are a troll. I bet you only voted for IDF too. You are no better then the terrorists, sir.

Troll as usual.thats a good strategy.. If you cant defeat their points.. call them Trolls. :rolleyes:

Hamas members wear their colours and emblems at parades

If it is the policy of Hamas to not abide by the Geneva Conventions, then a member of Hamas cannot be termed a combatant. Same goes for Hezbollah.

"The Taliban" is a religious movement, I don't even know what you're talking about here.

I was referring to the Afghani resistance movement against the US invasion, or however you want to term it.

they could fall under "militias", which are recognised by the Convention.

The same protections applies for militia who meet certain criteria, which are about the same:

guerrillas who follow the rules spelled out in the Geneva Conventions are considered to have combatant status and have some of the same rights as regular members of the armed forces. In international conflicts, guerrillas must distinguish themselves from the civilian population if they are preparing or engaged in an attack. At a minimum, guerrillas must carry their arms openly. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) Under the earlier Geneva Conventions, which are more widely recognized, a guerrilla army must have a well-defined chain of command, be clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry arms openly and observe the laws of war. (Convention III, Art. 4, Sec. 2) In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3).

You call Coalition Troop terrorists, you are a troll. I bet you only voted for IDF too. You are no better then the terrorists, sir.

Eh heh. So, anyone that disagrees with you, or offers opinions dissenting from the masses, is a troll/terrorist?

News to me.

You are no better then the terrorists, sir.If calling them Trolls fails.. Call them terrorist..

LibertaVeritas.. Just dont Cry when someone calls you an Idiot. ;)

If it is the policy of Hamas to not abide by the Geneva Conventions, then a member of Hamas cannot be termed a combatant. Same goes for Hezbollah.
You know, I've always rejected the idea of judging people based on the organisation they belong to.
Someone can belong to Hamas or Hezbollah, and not be a terrorist. There are many thousands of them.

At any rate, it depends on the actions.

I was referring to the Afghani resistance movement against the US invasion, or however you want to term it.
If they are carrying their weapons openly, and they attack checkpoints, military convois or towns, then they are obviously combattants.
If they blow themselves up to kill soldiers without ever identifying themselves, they're not combattants as such, but they also aren't terrorists (it's not a dichotomy, you know).
And if they blow up civilians for some political purpose, they're terrorists. But as I said, I don't wanna go by organisation, but rather by individual action.

The same protections applies for militia who meet certain criteria, which are about the same:
True. I was thinking more with regards to the right to be treated as POW:
4.1.6 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.

So by that rule, it seems to me like AQ, some Iraqi insurgent groups, some Afghan insurgent groups, Hamas and Hezbollah have at some point in time committed terrorist acts.
By the same token, they have at some point fought as combattants.

I still believe that you have to decide the details on a case-by-case basis.

Coalition troops.
:rolleyes:

saw that one coming

yes america is evil
iraqi fighters figting the coalition are good
blah blah blah

If calling them Trolls fails.. Call them terrorist..

LibertaVeritas.. Just dont Cry when someone calls you an Idiot. ;)

I crush your head! CRUSH! CRUSH! CRUSH!

I crush your head! CRUSH! CRUSH! CRUSH!

Someone got let loose today, didn't he? :)

yes america is evil
iraqi fighters figting the coalition are good
blah blah blah
I hope you're learning something about the truth of relativism here.

I hope you're learning something about the truth of relativism here.

nope, my learning for the day ended when i woke up

If it is the policy of Hamas to not abide by the Geneva Conventions, then a member of Hamas cannot be termed a combatant. Same goes for Hezbollah.



I was referring to the Afghani resistance movement against the US invasion, or however you want to term it.



The same protections applies for militia who meet certain criteria, which are about the same:

guerrillas who follow the rules spelled out in the Geneva Conventions are considered to have combatant status and have some of the same rights as regular members of the armed forces. In international conflicts, guerrillas must distinguish themselves from the civilian population if they are preparing or engaged in an attack. At a minimum, guerrillas must carry their arms openly. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) Under the earlier Geneva Conventions, which are more widely recognized, a guerrilla army must have a well-defined chain of command, be clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry arms openly and observe the laws of war. (Convention III, Art. 4, Sec. 2) In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3).


I think the whole thing comes down to that really annoying carrying arms openly thing. Even during WW2 when the allies knew about the other side not following the Geneva convention, we chose to. The same thing goes for Vietnam actually. I just wonder what makes this war so different that the US thinks it can just make up the rules now?

:rolleyes:

saw that one coming

yes america is evil
iraqi fighters figting the coalition are good
blah blah blah

Since when does America= 'Coalition'.

You're forgeting someone....;)

Since when does America= 'Coalition'.

You're forgeting someone....;)

Erm...47 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3b/Original_coalition.JPG) (originally) actually.

Since when does America= 'Coalition'.

You're forgeting someone....;)

sorry your right

but still the fallback is Ussually on America

On the list. the IDF are the only non terrorists, in that they are a legitimate military force and not just murderers. Israel is very close to being a terrorist state however, what with their continuing invasion of palestine and their destuction of peoples homes.

Erm...47 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3b/Original_coalition.JPG) (originally) actually.

Poland! Come on, the joke was right there..... *tsk tsk*

Coalition troops.
Checks to see if your eyes are brown.

Yup! :p

IMO, the IDF is a recognized army, not a terrorist force. And the Iraqis may or may not be terrorists, depending on whether they're fighting our soldiers or kidnapping/killing civilians.

US army and All of the above..
.
4th criteria

But by the same criteria, iraqi insurgents are not combatants and are therefore not protected by the geneva conventions. This would mean that the U.S. didn't break the geneva conventions and are meet all the criteria of combatants.

I question how many people even knew what the IDF was before they voted. I have a feeling some people ran through and checked very box.

The IDF is the military of Israel. It works in accordance with Israeli and international laws, and the Geneva convention, as closely as the US Army or any other nation's military does. It isn't defined as a terrorist organization by any civilized state.

Every other organization on that list has been classified as a terrorist group by one or more First World countries.

Classifying the Israeli military as a terrorist group is distinctly anti-Semitic. When I see that more people voted that the Israeli military is a terrorist group than the Taliban, it makes me question if the voters are more along the lines of anti-Semitic terrorist sympathizers or if they didn't really know WTF the Taliban or the IDF actually was.

Every other organization on that list has been classified as a terrorist group by one or more First World countries.
Not necessarily.
The EU for example only recognises the military arm of Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, not the civilian arm.

Also, I see that for example the group that has committed the most suicide bombings in history, the Tamil Tigers, is not in the poll. Which could be interpreted as distinctly anti-Islamic.

Classifying the Israeli military as a terrorist group is distinctly anti-Semitic.
You lose.

I might not agree with those who voted for the IDF, but I can tell you that it doesn't have to have anything to do with anti-semitism. Indeed, that forward defence line is little more than a fancy evocation of Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law).

Not necessarily.
The EU for example only recognises the military arm of Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, not the civilian arm.

Hezbollah is an illegal terrorist group according to both Israel and the US. Like I said, at least one First World nation (in this case more than one) recognizes it as a terrorist group.

Also, I see that for example the group that has committed the most suicide bombings in history, the Tamil Tigers, is not in the poll. Which could be interpreted as distinctly anti-Islamic.

The Tamil Tigers are a terrorist group too.

You lose.

I might not agree with those who voted for the IDF, but I can tell you that it doesn't have to have anything to do with anti-semitism. Indeed, that forward defence line is little more than a fancy evocation of Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law).

For one, you might want to go back and reread the wikipedia article. It seems that "Godwin's Law" is a part of internet newsgroup pop culture. It isn't a logical principle, or an informal fallacy. Rather its a play on the latter.

And yes, it does have something to do with anti-Semitism. In fact, calling the Israeli military "terrorist" or the Jewish state "terrorist" is anti-Semitic, by definition. Quite simply, it is a predjuice against Jews and Jewish associations. Reviewing the definition in the American Heritage, "One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews", it seems that the word anti-Semitic fits any predjuice description of the Jewish military, such as calling it terrorist.

Saying "you lose" is pretty infantile too. I win, I win!

Hezbollah is an illegal terrorist group according to both Israel and the US. Like I said, at least one First World nation (in this case more than one) recognizes it as a terrorist group.
Whoop di do. So what?



The Tamil Tigers are a terrorist group too.
Or revolutionary resistance/freddom group, depending on your perspective.


And yes, it does have something to do with anti-Semitism. In fact, calling the Israeli military "terrorist" or the Jewish state "terrorist" is anti-Semitic, by definition. Quite simply, it is a predjuice against Jews and Jewish associations. Reviewing the definition in the American Heritage, "One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews", it seems that the word anti-Semitic fits any predjuice description of the Jewish military, such as calling it terrorist.


So, anti Israeli = anti Jew/anti Semitic

Hmmm. Must be a shock to all those Israeli-Arabs, and Israeli-Christians then.

... it makes me question if the voters are more along the lines of anti-Semitic terrorist sympathizers or if they didn't really know WTF the Taliban or the IDF actually was....We know what The Taliban and what The IDF are..

The average NSG poster is well informed.. better informed than the average citizen..

You must be new around here.

The Tamil Tigers are a terrorist group too.
Yet no one talks about them, and no one adds them to this sort of poll, do they?

For one, you might want to go back and reread the wikipedia article. It seems that "Godwin's Law" is a part of internet newsgroup pop culture. It isn't a logical principle, or an informal fallacy. Rather its a play on the latter.
*Looks around*
Hey, we are in an internet newsgroup culture sort of setting.

And yes, it does have something to do with anti-Semitism. In fact, calling the Israeli military "terrorist" or the Jewish state "terrorist" is anti-Semitic, by definition. Quite simply, it is a predjuice against Jews and Jewish associations. Reviewing the definition in the American Heritage, "One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews", it seems that the word anti-Semitic fits any predjuice description of the Jewish military, such as calling it terrorist.
Why would you think that is prejudice that is driving such accusations?

One could certainly make an argument that the IDF has been engaged in extremely unsavoury operations that could earn the title of "state terrorism". There have been massacres, targeted assassinations, "collateral damage", extreme misbehaviour by members of the IDF and so on and so forth.

If one was to sympathise more with the little guy, and thus in this situation the Palestinians, one would without a doubt pick up on such things. And if one was outspoken enough, one would call that terrorism.

At no point does that require even a hint of antisemitism - hell, most of the people who say that the IDF is committing terrorist acts would say the same thing about the US Military, or maybe even other NATO States.

I stop short of calling these things "terrorism", but I myself have to say that I find the destruction of the little economy that Gaza has, which is happening right now, quite appalling. What has the tomato farmer done to deserve having to dump half a years work into a ditch because they won't let him pass the checkpoint?

So, anti Israeli = anti Jew/anti Semitic

Hmmm. Must be a shock to all those Israeli-Arabs, and Israeli-Christians then.

Not really, if they are familiar with their government and Declaration of Statehood. Its a Jewish state, not an Israeli-Arab or Israeli-Christian state. Israeli-Arabs and Israeli-Christians can be citizens, but this doesn't change the nature of the state.

Israeli-Arabs and Israeli-Christians can be citizens, but this doesn't change the nature of the state.

Clearly these two theories are in direct conflict then.

I am against some policies of the Israeli Govt. I do not 'hate' the Israeli people, nor do I wish bad karma on any person of the Jewish faith. The two are not interchangable, however much you would like them to be.

One could certainly make an argument that the IDF has been engaged in extremely unsavoury operations that could earn the title of "state terrorism". There have been massacres, targeted assassinations, "collateral damage", extreme misbehaviour by members of the IDF and so on and so forth.

If one was to sympathise more with the little guy, and thus in this situation the Palestinians, one would without a doubt pick up on such things. And if one was outspoken enough, one would call that terrorism.

At no point does that require even a hint of antisemitism - hell, most of the people who say that the IDF is committing terrorist acts would say the same thing about the US Military, or maybe even other NATO States.

I think I said in my first post that Israel has conformed to international law and held the same standards as the US military and other civilized nations. Everything that Israel could be said to be guilty of, we can also find in the history of the United States and other nations.

Now, to be fair, if someone uses this same criteria to make an argument that both the IDF and US Army are terrorist groups, that would be fine. My experience is that it is mostly Americans and Europeans who claim Israel is a terrorist state, based on the above criteria, while ignoring that their own states meet the same criteria. The fact that it is only being applied to Israel is evidence of the prejudice.

Now, if there are people who say that the IDF, the US Military, UN forces and other NATO states are all terrorist groups, since they all fit the criteria, that is fine. I can't see any anti-Semitism there. However, I see Israel being singled out.

the definition of terrorist vs combatant depends entirely on the whose side you're on and in the long term on the winner of the conflict.

after the collapse of the italian army in september 43 both my grandfathers left their units and went up in the mountains to join the partisan brigades fighting the nazis and fascists. the fact that they are remebered as freedom fighters and not as hideous terrorists depends entirely on the fact that ther side happened (luckily) to have won the war.

the same principle is applicable at any guerrilla movement in history.

And yes, it does have something to do with anti-Semitism. In fact, calling the Israeli military "terrorist" or the Jewish state "terrorist" is anti-Semitic, by definition. Quite simply, it is a predjuice against Jews and Jewish associations. Reviewing the definition in the American Heritage, "One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews", it seems that the word anti-Semitic fits any predjuice description of the Jewish military, such as calling it terrorist.

..Why does nobody notice that Christianity and Islam are Semitic as well? Judaism has no claim on it. This entire poll is in a way biased toward Semitism, in a broader sense of the word.

Yeah, I know.. anti-semitism and semitic cultures/languages aren't considered the same today.. but dammit. It's all the bloody same. To be against either the Jewish people, or Arabs, is anti-semitic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-semitism#Etymology_and_usage

To say nothing of the rest of those there. Christianity, anyone?

Every other organization on that list has been classified as a terrorist group by one or more First World countries.
Weeeeel... The Iraqi insurgents aren't really classified as terrorists are they? Al Qa'ida In Iraq and other groups are labeled as such, but not the insurgents.

And neither is the Taliban. You won't find them on the US state departement list (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm) of foreign terrorist organizations, for example.

According to the Geneva Conventions, to be considered a combatant, you must:


be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates
have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
carry arms openly
conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war


Which of the following do you think are not combatants: Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iraqi insurgents, Hamas, Hezbollah, and IDF troops.

Ah, nothing like a false dichotomy.

I'd love to see you provide the quotations from the Conventions to prove:

(1) these are the criteria for a combatant
(2) anyone that does not meet this criteria is not protected by the Conventions.

Good luck.

*snip*

Someone needs to learn to use actual arguments rather than just labeling others "anti-Semitic."

Contrary to your assertion, criticism of Isreal is not necessarily anti-Semitic. In fact, there are Isreali Jews that don't agree with some of the things that Isreal has done. Are they all anti-Semitic?

Classifying the Israeli military as a terrorist group is distinctly anti-Semitic. Most of the other organizations there are Semitic as well, you know.
Arabs are Semites just as much as Jews. (Which should give some food for thought if anyone calls Arabs anti-semitic; I'm sure they don't all hate themselves..)

The "recognize at a distance" pretty much excludes anyone that is in a military using camouflage...

It means that if you notice there is someone there, you can say: "Oh that is a US marine, I can recognise the camoflage pattern." Stops friendly fire.

:rolleyes:

saw that one coming

yes america is evil
iraqi fighters figting the coalition are good
blah blah blah


I hope you'd have better arguments, 'cause these are sadly poor. America was breaking international rules and iraki fighters had the right to resist. That's a fact. I wait for your answer, please, reasoned.

It means that if you notice there is someone there, you can say: "Oh that is a US marine, I can recognise the camoflage pattern." Stops friendly fire.What about ghillie suits?

I question how many people even knew what the IDF was before they voted. I have a feeling some people ran through and checked very box.

The IDF is the military of Israel. It works in accordance with Israeli and international laws, and the Geneva convention, as closely as the US Army or any other nation's military does. It isn't defined as a terrorist organization by any civilized state.

Every other organization on that list has been classified as a terrorist group by one or more First World countries.

Classifying the Israeli military as a terrorist group is distinctly anti-Semitic. When I see that more people voted that the Israeli military is a terrorist group than the Taliban, it makes me question if the voters are more along the lines of anti-Semitic terrorist sympathizers or if they didn't really know WTF the Taliban or the IDF actually was.

Thanks, I didn't know what the IDF was, so I didn't vote it. But... The IDF makes things I think are terrorism, 'cause for me terrorism is actions made to cause fear. So, destroying the houses of suicide families fit quite well. In the other hand, I'm not a "civilized state" so I have not to agree with its definition. So, Hamas or Hizbullah are resistance movements for me. Not al-qaeda. It's weird that every so-called terrorist group is a third world organization. So they are terrorist to us. Maybe, they cannot fight against our armies in other way. Terrorism is a method we disaprove, but I disaprove many other methods, like "selective murders" from the IDF or Dresde Bombing or Hiroshima nuking....

Finally, Israel. Well, I'm quite tired to hear "If you don't like what Israel does, you are antisemitic" WRONG. You are Antisionistic. And Sionism is a modern way of of imperialism. I dslike israel policies, 'cause they are commiting crimes against civil population. But as they are quite democratic, and quite "western", it's ok for us, specially for the US.

I think I said in my first post that Israel has conformed to international law ...The fact that You said it Does not make it true.

who are idf?

who are idf?
Iceland Defense Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland_Defense_Force) apparently. :cool:

But I do believe that the OP is thinking about the Israeli Defence Forces. You know, the Israeli military? Wikipedia-link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDF) for those too lazy to use the internets. ;)

(1) these are the criteria for a combatant

I used Wikipedia on it, but it seems pretty correct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant

(2) anyone that does not meet this criteria is not protected by the Conventions.

I never said that.

I used Wikipedia on it, but it seems pretty correct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant


Given the legality of the issue, shouldn't you have used something, I dunno, a little more 'legalistic' to define it rather than just Wiki? :rolleyes:

The Geneva Convention is outdated. Sometimes it's more effective to carry out unconventional tactics. Anyway, think about this:

- Someone crashes an airplane into a civilian building.
- A bomber drops its payload on civilian buildings.

In both cases innocents die, but why's the first option considered terrorism and the second one the "right" way?

That whole thing about treating Prisoners of War humanely.
What time period are you from... EVERYONE does that. And I mean EVERYONE.

I believe the Iraqi insurgents are combatants (centralized) and their cause is viable. The nationalist especially are ex-Iraqi soldiers (and generals). They've been humuliated on both Gulf wars (1 and 2) and they won't allow American troops have their way in their own country, in their own streets:sniper:

That whole thing about treating Prisoners of War humanely.

The guys fighting the coalition in iraq is not under a specific uniform, do not carry their arms openly, behead their prisoners of war(which makes what we are doing to our prisoners very humane), and from what we can tell are not subordinates of any specific man, and therefore are considered spies should be shot, i think what we are doing is pretty humane.

I believe the Iraqi insurgents are combatants (centralized) and their cause is viable. The nationalist especially are ex-Iraqi soldiers (and generals). They've been humuliated on both Gulf wars (1 and 2) and they won't allow American troops have their way in their own country, in their own streets:sniper:
You need to do a bit of reading.

They've been humuliated on both Gulf wars (1 and 2)

Thats down to their own incompetence isn't it!

The guys fighting the coalition in iraq is not under a specific uniform, do not carry their arms openly, behead their prisoners of war(which makes what we are doing to our prisoners very humane), and from what we can tell are not subordinates of any specific man, and therefore are considered spies should be shot, i think what we are doing is pretty humane.
Being humane isn't relative. There aren't degrees of it- you either are being humane or you aren't. There is no ''compared to XYZ, we're humane''.

The Geneva convention is a statist convention about international wars. Based only on that one would expect the Israeli army and the Taliban (while they ruled Afghanistan) to be the only ones on that list that fit the bill. Checking the criteria I see that all but those (just as one example) do attacks without wearing uniforms or insignia.

Being humane isn't relative. There aren't degrees of it- you either are being humane or you aren't. There is no ''compared to XYZ, we're humane''.
Yes it is. For example decapitation is more humane than burning somebody alive, but is not in itself humane.

Yes it is. For example decapitation is more humane than burning somebody alive, but is not in itself humane.

Not for the example I highlighted. The old

"Well, we're not as bad as Mao or Stalin" arguement doesn't really wash.

Decapitation with a rusty knife vs being burnt alive... and you want to call one of them more 'humane'.... :rolleyes:

German military dressed as civilians in Afghanistan. I'm sure the American or British forces in Iraq would do the same under certain circumstances...
Yeah, The Australian Commandos and SAS are exempt from military 'grooming rules' (short back and sides, no beard, no dye, ect...) for that very reason. They frequently pretend to be civilians to slip behind enemy lines and avoid detection during counter-insurgency ops. Incidentally, it is these 'black ops' groups which are also frequently involved in the breaking of international law (and the rules of war) secretly. Just to top it off, the weapons of black ops groups are frequently concealed, and it has happened on many occasions wherein the relevant government authorities 'responsible' for these troops denies involvement when they are captured breaking the rules. So yeah, any army which has elite/black ops teams aren't 'combatants' when considered as a whole.

Coalition troops.
thats a good strategy.. If you cant defeat their points.. call them Trolls.

You made no "points," just a tired, racist, anti-American flame. When the Geneva convention was signed, people thought of wars as formal; even in the American civil war, there were formal uniforms and formal leaders, not lunatics blowing themselves up in crowds of civillians that have no particular demographic make-up. Most of Iraq is made up of Shiites and Kurds, and most of them would like to be able to go out in public and they would like for people to stop blowing up their utility lines. Setting aside whether or not it was a good idea on the politicians' to go into Iraq, you are disrespecting good-hearted, charitable people who are doing their best to help the people who want to be helped. What must it be like to be so full of hate towards even the most noble people on earth? Do you think that most Coalition troops are groping detainees' genitals and dismembering women and children because they are "towl heads" and they don't have anything better to do?

The Geneva Convention is outdated. Sometimes it's more effective to carry out unconventional tactics. Anyway, think about this:

- Someone crashes an airplane into a civilian building.
- A bomber drops its payload on civilian buildings.

In both cases innocents die, but why's the first option considered terrorism and the second one the "right" way?
Your examples lack context. As they are presented both can be used to illustrate acts of war and acts of terror. (And war crimes to boot.)

Given the legality of the issue, shouldn't you have used something, I dunno, a little more 'legalistic' to define it rather than just Wiki? :rolleyes:

Here we are:
Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

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.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

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.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.
Linky-link (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)

none of them

since i don't remember the deliberate killing of civilians "a law or custom of war"

What time period are you from... EVERYONE does that. And I mean EVERYONE.


no they dont, america is suspected of inhumain practeses againced their POWs and have tourtured them in transite so not with in any state limits... even thinking that POWs get treated fairly is wrong because they dont ! :mad:

According to the Geneva Conventions, to be considered a combatant, you must:


be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates
have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
carry arms openly
conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war


Which of the following do you think are not combatants: Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iraqi insurgents, Hamas, Hezbollah, and IDF troops.
Incorrect. The geneva convention which you are quoting does not define combatants, it is one (not the only one either) of it's defintitions of a POW
source: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm
Article 4 (EDIT: It's posted in reponse to a different post already)

Your examples lack context. As they are presented both can be used to illustrate acts of war and acts of terror. (And war crimes to boot.)
I don't find context relevant in those two examples, but if you want more accurate context:

- Someone crashes an airplane into the World Trade Center in New York.
- American bombers drop their ordnance on civilian homes in Baghdad.

How could one be possibly "a better way" than the other?

I don't find context relevant in those two examples, but if you want more accurate context:

- Someone crashes an airplane into the World Trade Center in New York.
- American bombers drop their ordnance on civilian homes in Baghdad.

How could one be possibly "a better way" than the other?
The bombs where presumably a mistake, the plane wasn't.

Bombers can be used for terrorism of course, terrorism is just a tactic, those using it give it another name.

The Japenese kamikazes in WW2 wheren't acts of terrorism because they targeted the military. The bombings of London and Dresdon where terrorist bombings because they targeted civilians and their aim was to cause terror.

Someone needs to learn to use actual arguments rather than just labeling others "anti-Semitic."

Contrary to your assertion, criticism of Isreal is not necessarily anti-Semitic. In fact, there are Isreali Jews that don't agree with some of the things that Isreal has done. Are they all anti-Semitic?

I didn't assert that criticism of Israel was anti-Semitic. In fact, I listed the definition of anti-Semitism from the dictionary and explained why labeling the Israeli military as a terrorist group is anti-Semitic, by definition.

"Criticism of Israel" or disagreeing with some things that Israel has done is a far cry from saying that the IDF is a terrorist group. The former is fine, the latter (if done in a prejudiced way) is anti-Semitic.

I didn't assert that criticism of Israel was anti-Semitic. In fact, I listed the definition of anti-Semitism from the dictionary and explained why labeling the Israeli military as a terrorist group is anti-Semitic, by definition.

"Criticism of Israel" or disagreeing with some things that Israel has done is a far cry from saying that the IDF is a terrorist group. The former is fine, the latter (if done in a prejudiced way) is anti-Semitic.
Terrorist: One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

So she's saying that the IDF have commited acts of terrorism, that is criticism of some things Israel has done. Which you've just said is not anti-semitic

Thanks, I didn't know what the IDF was, so I didn't vote it. But... The IDF makes things I think are terrorism, 'cause for me terrorism is actions made to cause fear. So, destroying the houses of suicide families fit quite well. In the other hand, I'm not a "civilized state" so I have not to agree with its definition. So, Hamas or Hizbullah are resistance movements for me. Not al-qaeda.

To begin, none of Israel's policies or military actions are done for the purpose of causing fear. When Israel bulldozes the houses of suicide bombers, the purpose is to remove a potential suicide base and serve as a deterrant. It isn't intended to cause terror. It also isn't directed against innocent victims.

I'm not sure where you draw the line between groups like Hamas and al-Qaeda. Both call themselves "resistance movements" but both use suicide bombers and terrorist tactics. In fact, it was Hamas that first developed and popularized Islamic suicide bombings. I am unclear about the statement above too - are you saying that the Israeli military is a terrorist group, but Hamas and Hizbullah aren't?

Finally, Israel. Well, I'm quite tired to hear "If you don't like what Israel does, you are antisemitic" WRONG. You are Antisionistic. And Sionism is a modern way of of imperialism. I dslike israel policies, 'cause they are commiting crimes against civil population. But as they are quite democratic, and quite "western", it's ok for us, specially for the US.

No one said that if you don't like Israel then you're anti-Semitic. A few people have simply misunderstood what I said and tried to turn it into that. In fact, I defined anti-Semitism from the dictionary and explained why referring to the IDF as a terrorist group fits the definition. No one has responded to that, yet.

And like I said in a previous post, its fine to "criticize" Israel, Zionism, Israeli politics, etc. However, to label the IDF as a terrorist group goes beyond conventional criticism and only stems from a biased point of view. Unless you are also willing to state that the US Army, and virtually every other military worldwide is a terrorist group, there is no basis to single the IDF out alone. The IDF has not done anything that other world militaries have not done, nor does it fail to conform to their standards. By singling the IDF out alone while ignoring the others, it demonstrates a bias and predjuice. Now, a bias and predjuidce toward Jews (and the IDF is a Jewish military, with manditory Jewish conscription) is anti-Semitism by definition.

Hopefully that clears it up. It isn't just "you disagree with Israeli policy so you hate Jews." Its a deliberate bias and predjudice toward the Jewish military and the Jewish state.

Terrorist: One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

So she's saying that the IDF have commited acts of terrorism, that is criticism of some things Israel has done. Which you've just said is not anti-semitic

Unless she is willing to admit that the US Army is also a terrorist group (because it has done all of the same things), then it is anti-Semitic, because it demonstrates a bias and predjuice toward Israel.

I don't find context relevant in those two examples, but if you want more accurate context:

- Someone crashes an airplane into the World Trade Center in New York.
- American bombers drop their ordnance on civilian homes in Baghdad.

How could one be possibly "a better way" than the other?The bombs where presumably a mistake, the plane wasn't.

Bombers can be used for terrorism of course, terrorism is just a tactic, those using it give it another name.

The Japenese kamikazes in WW2 wheren't acts of terrorism because they targeted the military. The bombings of London and Dresdon where terrorist bombings because they targeted civilians and their aim was to cause terror.
Seosavists has posted many of my points.

The context I wanted was more along the lines of intent. If the bomber was targeting the civilians, or if it was a mistake ("collateral damage"). If the planes were willfully crashed into the building to kill civilians, or if there were some other motive.

Terrorism is, as Seosavists pointed out, just a tactic. And as such, this thread is a bit misleading as a terrorist might simultaneously be a combatant. (And that's where war crimes start to play a part...)

To begin, none of Israel's policies or military actions are done for the purpose of causing fear. When Israel bulldozes the houses of suicide bombers, the purpose is to remove a potential suicide base and serve as a deterrant. It isn't intended to cause terror. It also isn't directed against innocent victims.
Ehm... Yes it is. It is intended to cause fear so that a would-be bomber would be dissuaded or possibly hindered or turned in by his own family.

And it is directed against innocent civilians, as it is a form of collective punishment targeting the families of suicide bombers, regardless of their knowledge or involvement.

Personally I see it as a good thing that the Israeli army itself came to the conclusion that these demolitions did not contribute to Israel's security, and that they have put an end to the policy.

Ehm... Yes it is. It is intended to cause fear so that a would-be bomber would be dissuaded or possibly hindered or turned in by his own family.

And it is directed against innocent civilians, as it is a form of collective punishment targeting the families of suicide bombers, regardless of their knowledge or involvement.

Personally I see it as a good thing that the Israeli army itself came to the conclusion that these demolitions did not contribute to Israel's security, and that they have put an end to the policy.

It isn't intended to cause "fear" any more than any other law is intended to cause fear. It was multi-purposed. One purpose was as a deterrent. However, making a deterrent that says "don't blow yourself up because we'll tear your house down" is no different than saying "don't sell drugs because we'll impound your house, then tear it down and sell the land" like most governments do to drug dealers. Other purposes were to prevent the same house as being used as a terrorist base.

And no, it isn't directed against civilians. Once a terrorist attacks, they are no longer a civilian. In addition, any direct resources they used (such as the house they operate out of) is not civilian property. It is a terrorist base, and thus a military target.

And Israel didn't put an end to the policy of targeted demolitions. Mofaz simply decided that specific types of punative house demolitions weren't working as deterrents. There are still many other forms of demolitions going on, such as the recent IDF shelling of Palestenian houses and lands used to launch qassam rockets from.

It isn't intended to cause "fear" any more than any other law is intended to cause fear. It was multi-purposed. One purpose was as a deterrent. However, making a deterrent that says "don't blow yourself up because we'll tear your house down" is no different than saying "don't sell drugs because we'll impound your house, then tear it down and sell the land" like most governments do to drug dealers. Other purposes were to prevent the same house as being used as a terrorist base.
So using your example, you would be perfectly OK with the government impounding your house, then tearing it down and selling the land because your son or daughter had sold drugs? (Unbeknownst to you, I might add)


And no, it isn't directed against civilians. Once a terrorist attacks, they are no longer a civilian. In addition, any direct resources they used (such as the house they operate out of) is not civilian property. It is a terrorist base, and thus a military target.
But the problem is that they aren't targeting the dead terrorist; they are targeting his living family regardless of their guilt. As such, it is directed against civilians. The terrorist is dead and is not punished.

And the removal of property rights from an innocent civilian like you would suggest is not exactly an acceptable practise either.

And Israel didn't put an end to the policy of targeted demolitions. Mofaz simply decided that specific types of punative house demolitions weren't working as deterrents. There are still many other forms of demolitions going on, such as the recent IDF shelling of Palestenian houses and lands used to launch qassam rockets from.
It is the punative house demolitions I'm glad they've put a stop to.

So using your example, you would be perfectly OK with the government impounding your house, then tearing it down and selling the land because your son or daughter had sold drugs? (Unbeknownst to you, I might add)

Me being "okay with it" is a non sequitur. The fact of the matter is, when the government does do that sort of thing, it isn't a terrorist act against civilians. It is carrying out a law that serves as a deterrent. If a daughter sells drugs out of a father's car and the car gets impounded, the police aren't a "terrorist group" for impounding or destroying the father's property.

But the problem is that they aren't targeting the dead terrorist; they are targeting his living family regardless of their guilt. As such, it is directed against civilians. The terrorist is dead and is not punished.

No, they aren't targetting any families. The target is the house, an inanimate object. The target is the property of the dead suicide bomber. Because there is nothing directed against the families, it is absurd to say that they are targetting civilians. The only target is a terrorist base.

And the removal of property rights from an innocent civilian like you would suggest is not exactly an acceptable practise either.

The residents of terrorist bases don't have any rights to those terrorist bases. They are military targets. They lost those legal rights when they violated the law. Just like you lose the legal rights to a house if you use it as a base to sell drugs out of.

By commiting suicide bombings, the terrorists forfeited their property to the Israeli government to be bulldozed according to the law.

It is the punative house demolitions I'm glad they've put a stop to.

Punative house demolitions by bulldozer are no different than the punative house demolitions they continue to do by air. A house that is bombed because it is a qassam rocket site, all of which contain families, is no different than a house being bulldozed because it was used as a base for a suicide bomber. The only reason Mofaz stopped them was because terrorist families of terrorist Palestenians didn't understand or respect the Rule of Law enough to get it. Instead, they continued to break the law, get punished, and then blame those carrying out the law for the punishment.

In fact, it isn't only Israel that destroys private property when it becomes a military target. The US Army has destroyed hundreds of houses throughout Iraq, in addition to fences, property markers, and other sorts of things when used by insurgents. I recall one instance where a huge, expensive wall was destroyed because insurgents were using it as a shield to shell passing US vehicles. The wall was the private property of an innocent farmer, but because of how it was being used, he had to give it up.

*snip*
You didn't read my last post, did you? Let me make it simple:

A suicide bomber blows himself up. The IDF moves in and destroys the house of his family - not the property owned by the terrorist, but his familys property. Regardless of whether or not any planning took place there (so you couldn't call it a "military target").

Destroying the house that belongs to innocent civilians for acts which they had nothing to do with = Targeting the civilians.

Other than that, there are too many points in your last point I disagree with (like the difference between destroying a car and a house) to start going into them all at this time. Maybe later...

Unless she is willing to admit that the US Army is also a terrorist group (because it has done all of the same things), then it is anti-Semitic, because it demonstrates a bias and predjuice toward Israel.
No, the US hasnt. Israel is a terrorist state and its army is an agent of terrorism, but Im not anti-semitic, so you cant use that card when someone calls Israel on what they do, just as you cant use the holocuast card over and over. It was a long time go, time to let things go. The world has changed

A suicide bomber blows himself up. The IDF moves in and destroys the house of his family - not the property owned by the terrorist, but his familys property. Regardless of whether or not any planning took place there (so you couldn't call it a "military target").
It never does.

Suicide Bombers always spend most of their time with their organisation. That becomes their real family.

Ultimately many mothers sort of accept the "martyr's fate" because they feel it's the right thing to do (just as is done with the Israeli mothers sending their kids to fight and potentially die a martyr on the other side) - but the decision, planning and any other aspect has nothing to do with the family, and everything with the disconnection of the bomber himself from it.

Which is also why bulldozing the house will never be a deterrent.