Validity of terrorist attacks

[Tsukiyumi]

Which makes me wonder: does the "identifying mark" have to represent what side you're on? What if I'm wearing an enemy uniform? Would I still be a "legal combatant" then?

[Aaron]

Which makes me wonder: does the "identifying mark" have to represent what side you're on? What if I'm wearing an enemy uniform? Would I still be a "legal combatant" then?

Just an enemy uniform, no id? Summary execution for you as a spy. Generally the identifying mark has to be distinct and visible, like an armband, a painted symbol etc. and it has to be uniform to your force. You can't have each guy wearing different style hunting clothes from the bargain bin at Jallamabad Depot.

[Tsukiyumi]

Yeah, but if I'm walking around waving the US flag, that gives away my position, and makes me vulnerable to attack.

If it isn't already, the first rule of warfare should be "don't get killed".

[Aaron]

Yeah, but if I'm walking around waving the US flag, that gives away my position, and makes me vulnerable to attack.

If it isn't already, the first rule of warfare should be "don't get killed".

Well, yeah.

Here read for yourselves rather then rely on my addled brain. It's actually quite interesting.

[Tsukiyumi]

Yeah, but if I'm walking around waving the US flag, that gives away my position, and makes me vulnerable to attack.

If it isn't already, the first rule of warfare should be "don't get killed".

Here read for yourselves rather then rely on my addled brain. It's actually quite interesting.

It is interesting. And ridiculous. People can be "legally" executed for "acts of sabotage?" What, like blowing up Nazi railways? And, I'll note that there isn't a section dealing with special forces...

As I already said, the Geneva Conventions are outdated crap. In my opinion, of course.

[Aaron]

It is interesting. And ridiculous. People can be "legally" executed for "acts of sabotage?" What, like blowing up Nazi railways? And, I'll note that there isn't a section dealing with special forces...

As I already said, the Geneva Conventions are outdated crap. In my opinion, of course.

Are they outdated? Yes they are. That doesn't mean that there should not be a code of conduct for soldiers, otherwise you get shit like the legal free-for-all that was Vietnam and Afghanistan with the Soviets.

Edit: But like I said before, this is all just a semantics debate at the troop level. Where as long as you adhere to your ROE (helpfully taped to the stock of your weapon) you'll be fine.

[Tsukiyumi]

...That doesn't mean that there should not be a code of conduct for soldiers...

I agree completely. There should be one, but as it stands currently, no one seems to follow most of those rules, and I'd rather be the guy (or country) left standing, than to go down "sticking to my principals".

[Aaron]

I agree completely. There should be one, but as it stands currently, no one seems to follow most of those rules, and I'd rather be the guy (or country) left standing, than to go down "sticking to my principals".

Define "no one", cause I know most of NATO does it in Afghanistan. Your certainly not going to win any friends by summarily executing Afghans, bombing villages willy nilly or shelling herds of goats.

[Captain Seafort]

Which is crap; the nation that captures them knows damn well that they're soldiers, but they can hide behind international law, and treat them like criminals. Crap.

Entirely legitimate: that's why Major Andre was hung by the revolutionaries during the American Revolution - he was trying to get back to the British positions in civvies.

[Tsukiyumi]

Entirely legitimate: that's why Major Andre was hung by the revolutionaries during the American Revolution - he was trying to get back to the British positions in civvies.

Well, I'd say that was wrong. They captured him already; sounds like they just wanted some "legal" excuse to kill him.

Just because something is "legal" doesn't make it right, and just because something is "illegal" doesn't make it wrong.

Think about that for a while, everyone.

[IanKennedy]

Entirely legitimate: that's why Major Andre was hung by the revolutionaries during the American Revolution - he was trying to get back to the British positions in civvies.

Well, I'd say that was wrong. They captured him already; sounds like they just wanted some "legal" excuse to kill him.

Just because something is "legal" doesn't make it right, and just because something is "illegal" doesn't make it wrong.

Think about that for a while, everyone.

What a strange concept of right and wrong you have.

[Tsukiyumi]

Entirely legitimate: that's why Major Andre was hung by the revolutionaries during the American Revolution - he was trying to get back to the British positions in civvies.

Well, I'd say that was wrong. They captured him already; sounds like they just wanted some "legal" excuse to kill him.

Just because something is "legal" doesn't make it right, and just because something is "illegal" doesn't make it wrong.

Think about that for a while, everyone.

What a strange concept of right and wrong you have.

Thank you.

If our laws were all based on logic, we wouldn't be endlessly discussing how screwed up they are, would we?

[Aaron]

Thank you.

If our laws were all based on logic, we wouldn't be endlessly discussing how screwed up they are, would we?

I can't claim to be an expert on the American Revolution but what exactly are they supposed to do with this guy? Your fighting an insurgency but your going to cart this guy around? If he had actually been in uniform he could have surrendered to the Brits and been given a parole and likely would have been exchanged at some point. His own actions condemned him to death.