www.ditl.org

Okay, I'll throw out an addendum: the "Continental Army" may have had some "distinguishing marks"; I can't seem to find any examples of their low-rank uniforms. The militias that made up the majority of our fighting force almost certainly did not.

Tsukiyumi wrote:But, they are valid targets for an airstrike?

Yes, because those responsible for said airstrike fill the criteria for being a legally constituted armed force.

We barely had money for ammunition, let alone uniforms for the rank-and-file. Most of them were just, by your definition, civilians, who took up arms in defense of their homes. At least, that's the way they saw it, and that's the way our history books see it.

Tough shit. If they had a command structure, and a distingishing mark (such as an armband, as I suggested), fair enough. If not then they're no better than a bunch of criminals.

Again, just because they don't meet some criteria for being "soldiers" doesn't change the fact that we are at war.

Against the Taleban, sure. Against AQ, and the IRA, it's simply a case of apprehending (or killing) a bunch of extremely dangerous criminals.

So, if I kill people under the criteria of the Geneva Convention, it's somehow more "moral"? Okay.

I would say so. I makes no difference to the dead and their families of course, but I personnally hold those with the guts to stand up and present themselves as members of a given organisation higher than a bunch of cowards sneaking round with no responsibility to any single body, hiding their allegiance, and pretending to be unarmed until they start shooting (or setting off a car bomb from half a mile away).

They are, however, just as valid as targets as when we blow up people's houses in Afghanistan when they pull double-duty as ammunition dumps or machine gun emplacements.

No they fucking aren't you blind stupid c**t. How many times to I have to say this before it gets through your think skull?

Okay, I'll make this simple for everyone, as my friend in the Marine Corps just stated when I explained this debate to him.

Enemy shooting at you from schoolhouse A: valid target.

Enemy shooting at you from Military Post A: also valid target.

Blowing up Skyscraper A with no enemy combatants present: not a valid target.

Enemy sleeping in mosque B: valid target.

Enemy sleeping in Military Post B: also valid target.

Blowing up Hospital B with no enemy combatants present: not a valid target.

And, for the record, none of our spec ops people go in with "distinguishing marks" or "carrying weapons openly". They wear the same clothes as the native people so they can blend in, and perform sneak attacks.

Oh, and this:

Captain Seafort wrote:

We barely had money for ammunition, let alone uniforms for the rank-and-file. Most of them were just, by your definition, civilians, who took up arms in defense of their homes. At least, that's the way they saw it, and that's the way our history books see it.

Tough s**t. If they had a command structure, and a distingishing mark (such as an armband, as I suggested), fair enough. If not then they're no better than a bunch of criminals.

Tough shit to you. To us, they're heroes, and the people who founded our country. But I guess they were just terrorists to you guys.

No need to get snippy, Seafort; I just think your method of definition between "soldier" and "criminal" is illogical, and outdated.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Enemy shooting at you from schoolhouse A: valid target.

Enemy shooting at you from Military Post A: also valid target.

Fair enough.

Blowing up Skyscraper A with no enemy combatants present: not a valid target.

Obvously

Enemy sleeping in mosque B: valid target.

You be better off going in and nicking him, but if that isn't an option due to it being used as a firebase, and you know that no noncombatants are present then fine - flatten it.

Enemy sleeping in Military Post B: also valid target.

See above, although "flatten it" would be somewhat higher on the agenda.

Blowing up Hospital B with no enemy combatants present: not a valid target.

A hospital wouldn't be a valid target unless it was firing at you at that moment.

And, for the record, none of our spec ops people go in with "distinguishing marks" or "carrying weapons openly". They wear the same clothes as the native people so they can blend in, and perform sneak attacks.

In which case they are acting illegally under the Geneva Convention.

I note that none of your examples involve the likes of the IRA.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Enemy sleeping in mosque B: valid target.

You be better off going in and nicking him, but if that isn't an option due to it being used as a firebase, and you know that no noncombatants are present then fine - flatten it.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Enemy sleeping in Military Post B: also valid target.

See above, although "flatten it" would be somewhat higher on the agenda.

The military post is a more valid target, yes. Yet, we still consider a schoolhouse or mosque that may or may not have kids or civilians in it as a valid target if people are shooting at us from it.

Captain Seafort wrote:

And, for the record, none of our spec ops people go in with "distinguishing marks" or "carrying weapons openly". They wear the same clothes as the native people so they can blend in, and perform sneak attacks.

In which case they are acting illegally under the Geneva Convention...

Which also includes the British spec ops over there.

Captain Seafort wrote:...I note that none of your examples involve the likes of the IRA.

Um, okay.

Shooting enemy as he retrieves pizza at gate of Military Post A: valid target.

Shooting delivery driver handing over pizza at gate of Military Post A: not a valid target.

The key is that your enemy is the only target. Not the populace (unless they're sleeping in the same house as the enemy). When at war, the enemy's status as "soldier" or "criminal" is irrelevant; you simply kill the enemy. Preferably while he's sleeping.

Also, the Geneva Convention is outdated, and needs to be overhauled to deal with, well, reality.

Policeman has been shot dead in Northern Ireland tonight, a patrol came under fire while investigating suspicious activity near a school in a predominatly nationlist area. No further news on it but they seem to think its not necessariy linked to previous events at this time.

Just on the tv news here, I'm sure if you go check bbc site it'll tell more.

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:...I note that none of your examples involve the likes of the IRA.

Um, okay.

Shooting enemy as he retrieves pizza at gate of Military Post A: valid target.

Shooting delivery driver handing over pizza at gate of Military Post A: not a valid target.

The key is that your enemy is the only target. Not the populace (unless they're sleeping in the same house as the enemy). When at war, the enemy's status as "soldier" or "criminal" is irrelevant; you simply kill the enemy. Preferably while he's sleeping.

You brainless fucking c**t. How many times do I have to say this to get it through your thick skull. Your descriptions apply to valid targets for legal combatants. This category does not include the IRA - they are merely criminals, no more, as dangerous as they are, and as much as they like to claim otherwise.

As long as individuals fail to observe the requirements for legal combatants, they have no rights under the laws of war, only those granted under the laws of whatever country they're in.

Also, the Geneva Convention is outdated, and needs to be overhauled to deal with, well, reality.

It works fine as it is.

My thick skull? Funny man!

Again, this is coming from a friend of mine who's actually been to war: whether they're "soldiers" or "criminals" is irrelevant. They're the enemy, and the only thing to do at WAR is kill the enemy.

Your ignorant protests of "but, they're not legal combatants!" has no bearing on whether a state of war exists. And, whatever crap you learned at your university doesn't change that a state of war exists. Whether the enemy is wearing a uniform is irrelevant. They could be running around naked, and they're still the enemy, and they are still at war with you. Just because you don't view it that way doesn't change things for them.

You've already said that the patriots who founded the US were "no better than a bunch of criminals", and both of our countries' spec-ops soldiers are terrorists, so I don't much care what your views on the subject are, or what the fucking outdated Geneva Convention that our enemies don't adhere to says. Words are words, and facts are facts.

When people target their enemies' populous, they're evil. Targeting their enemies' military is a perfectly valid aspect of guerrilla warfare.

Here, I'll save you the trouble of typing a response:

Seafort: "Look you fucking cocksucker, what a piece of paper says is more important than basic logic! Who cares about reality, my textbook is the fucking word of god! etc."

That about right?

I'm going to suggest that we give this a rest before we, I don't know, start insulting each other or something.

You believe what books and laws tell you, and I believe what logic and experienced people tell me. The end.

Thank you.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Again, this is coming from a friend of mine who's actually been to war: whether they're "soldiers" or "criminals" is irrelevant. They're the enemy, and the only thing to do at WAR is kill the enemy.

Your ignorant protests of "but, they're not legal combatants!" has no bearing on whether a state of war exists. And, whatever crap you learned at your university doesn't change that a state of war exists. Whether the enemy is wearing a uniform is irrelevant. They could be running around naked, and they're still the enemy, and they are still at war with you. Just because you don't view it that way doesn't change things for them.

If you're talking about the right of the RUC GC/PSNI/army to kill IRA men, I have no problem with that whatsoever.

If you're talking about the IRA having the right to kill members of the security forces then you can go and fuck yourself with a cattleprod.

You've already said that the traitors who founded the US were "no better than a bunch of criminals"

Fixed your terminology. Note that I referred specifically to the Minutemen - the Continental Army, as far as I know, acted legally and correctly.

both of our countries' spec-ops soldiers are terrorists

I said nothing of the sort - I merely pointed out that failing to display arms openly and failing to display a distinguishing mark are illegal under the Geneva Convention. "Illegal combatant" and "terrorist" are not synonyms.

outdated Geneva Convention

Give evidence of this. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it "outdated".

Targeting their enemies' military is a perfectly valid aspect of guerrilla warfare.

Hiding in civilian clothes and hiding weapons until they open fire is not, under the laws of war.

Hey, look, I was right! I do a pretty decent Seafort impression.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:Again, this is coming from a friend of mine who's actually been to war: whether they're "soldiers" or "criminals" is irrelevant. They're the enemy, and the only thing to do at WAR is kill the enemy.

Your ignorant protests of "but, they're not legal combatants!" has no bearing on whether a state of war exists. And, whatever crap you learned at your university doesn't change that a state of war exists. Whether the enemy is wearing a uniform is irrelevant. They could be running around naked, and they're still the enemy, and they are still at war with you. Just because you don't view it that way doesn't change things for them.

If you're talking about the right of the RUC GC/PSNI/army to kill IRA men, I have no problem with that whatsoever.

If you're talking about the IRA having the right to kill members of the security forces then you can go and f**k yourself with a cattleprod.

I'm not talking about either having a right to kill each other. I'm pointing out for the tenth time here that whether you define it as a war or not, that's what it is.

Captain Seafort wrote:

You've already said that the traitors who founded the US were "no better than a bunch of criminals"

Fixed your terminology. Note that I referred specifically to the Minutemen - the Continental Army, as far as I know, acted legally and correctly.

And, I already pointed out that the majority of the forces who fought in the Revolutionary WAR were civilians, by your definition. Which means, by your definition, that other than the few wearing uniforms, Britain was over here fighting terrorists. Which means, you can go and fuck yourself with a crumpet.

Captain Seafort wrote:

both of our countries' spec-ops soldiers are terrorists

I said nothing of the sort - I merely pointed out that failing to display arms openly and failing to display a distinguishing mark are illegal under the Geneva Convention. "Illegal combatant" and "terrorist" are not synonyms.

The spec-ops guys run around in civvie clothes, concealing their weapons, and covertly attack targets.

Al-Qaeda runs around in civvie clothes, concealing their weapons, and covertly attack targets.

The only difference is what side they're on, and that the spec-ops guys don't routinely target civilians specifically.

Captain Seafort wrote:

outdated Geneva Convention

Give evidence of this. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it "outdated".

Plenty of evidence in this thread, coming from you. The entire concept of "if they aren't wearing a neon sign saying 'I'm the enemy!', and running around waving guns, then they're just criminals, not combatants" is clearly an outdated concept considering that the majority of combatants we're at WAR with in modern times don't do those things.

Remind me, when was that document crafted, again?

Captain Seafort wrote:

Targeting their enemies' military is a perfectly valid aspect of guerrilla warfare.

Hiding in civilian clothes and hiding weapons until they open fire is not, under the laws of war.

Right. I'll ask my friend why he didn't remind Al-Qaeda of that when they were shooting at him, and setting off the IED that almost took his head off. Even he agreed with me that stealth attacks are perfectly acceptable, and widely used by any competent fighting force on earth. Including both of our countries' spec-ops.

Look, man, I don't really have much else to do in between packing, so if you'd like to keep going in circles about this, that's fine by me. Like I said before, you keep on believing what books and laws tell you, and I'll keep on believing what reality and people who've actually been in combat tell me.

Tsu, the Conventions are mostly concerned with the treatment of POW's and how to classify them. The difference between a soldier, partisan and criminal are academic on the battlefield and their status only really matters when they are taken prisoner and then what rights they are granted. The Taliban for example are classed as criminals and are supposed to be handed over to the Afghans.

And, I already pointed out that the majority of the forces who fought in the Revolutionary WAR were civilians, by your definition. Which means, by your definition, that other than the few wearing uniforms, Britain was over here fighting terrorists. Which means, you can go and f**k yourself with a crumpet.

As for this, the US revolutionaries would likely be considered partisans today, though at the time they were probably considered traitors and liable to be hung (rebelling against the legitimate governemnt and all), though the argument is pointless now, the Conventions didn't exist then.

Cpl Kendall wrote:Tsu, the Conventions are mostly concerned with the treatment of POW's and how to classify them.

Which I am soundly in support of.

Cpl Kendall wrote:The difference between a soldier, partisan and criminal are academic on the battlefield and their status only really matters when they are taken prisoner and then what rights they are granted. The Taliban for example are classed as criminals and are supposed to be handed over to the Afghans.

Do those guys ever actually surrender?

I guess they might be taken prisoner if they're wounded.

This argument (on my end, at least) has been about whether you can be at war with people apparently classed as "criminals". I say "yes", as does the current administration. Also, that method of classification would extend to our own spec-ops soldiers because of their SOP. I don't care for that method, and believe it should be changed.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

And, I already pointed out that the majority of the forces who fought in the Revolutionary WAR were civilians, by your definition. Which means, by your definition, that other than the few wearing uniforms, Britain was over here fighting terrorists. Which means, you can go and f**k yourself with a crumpet.

As for this, the US revolutionaries would likely be considered partisans today, though at the time they were probably considered traitors and liable to be hung (rebelling against the legitimate governemnt and all), though the argument is pointless now, the Conventions didn't exist then.

Right. I used them as an illustration of my point; the UK may have viewed them as simple traitors, but a state of war existed whether they wanted to call it that or not. Therefore, things like the attack of HMS Eagle were guerrilla attacks, not terrorist attacks, as Seafort believes.