Validity of terrorist attacks

[Tsukiyumi]

Not in the slightest - in the specific example you give I don't give a damn whether the scum in question are called al-Qaeda or the CIA, their morality (or lack thereof) is determined by their actions.

But, they are in the service of a uniformed force. They may even have a formal war going on or maybe they don't. At what point should you switch from being a terrorist to a soldier? In your opinion that is.

Well he's already said: you have to be wearing a neon sign and waving credentials at your enemies to be classed as a soldier.

[Tsukiyumi]

While we're waiting, a little music.

[Captain Seafort]

No, "I'm bored" isn't an acceptable excuse to declare war. "You're occupying my land" is.

Quite. However, the British government hasn't declared war on the IRA - mainly because they're occupying fuck-all, so I fail to see the point of this statement.

You may have heard of one of my more famous "relatives", Crazy Horse. He wasn't a terrorist, though I'm sure the "laws of war" would class him as such. Would war paint qualify as an "identifying mark"?

Quite possibly. Plus, IIRC, Crazy Horse was a head of state, and acknowledged as such by the US government through various treaties (admittedly said treaties were routinely ignored, but they were signed).

[Deepcrush]

Not in the slightest - in the specific example you give I don't give a damn whether the scum in question are called al-Qaeda or the CIA, their morality (or lack thereof) is determined by their actions.

But, they are in the service of a uniformed force. They may even have a formal war going on or maybe they don't. At what point should you switch from being a terrorist to a soldier? In your opinion that is.

Well he's already said: you have to be wearing a neon sign and waving credentials at your enemies to be classed as a soldier.

Maybe neon or hellokitty. Either way doesn't matter. I would like to know what he see's as the difference between terrorist tactics vs open warfare.

[Tsukiyumi]

No, "I'm bored" isn't an acceptable excuse to declare war. "You're occupying my land" is.

Quite. However, the British government hasn't declared war on the IRA - mainly because they're occupying f**k-all, so I fail to see the point of this statement.

So, both sides have to agree that it is a war before a war starts? I'm pretty sure that isn't how it plays out in reality.

You may have heard of one of my more famous "relatives", Crazy Horse. He wasn't a terrorist, though I'm sure the "laws of war" would class him as such. Would war paint qualify as an "identifying mark"?

Quite possibly. Plus, IIRC, Crazy Horse was a head of state, and acknowledged as such by the US government through various treaties (admittedly said treaties were routinely ignored, but they were signed).

Every single treaty the US signed regarding the Native Americans were broken. Look it up. Why would our side have cared about "treaties" and "rules" if they're just ignored when it's convenient? Who is the recognized winner of that non-existent war? The US.

We should have played hardball from day one, instead of trying to follow the ridiculous treaties. As my dad said, "They should have burned Columbus' ships and killed all of them right there."

[Captain Seafort]

But, they are in the service of a uniformed force. They may even have a formal war going on or maybe they don't. At what point should you switch from being a terrorist to a soldier? In your opinion that is.

I wouldn't use the phrase "terrorist" to describe the CIA's antics - their actions are certainly criminal, but a terrorist is a specific type of criminal. I'd also object to defining all legal combatants as "soldiers". There are plenty of militias that fit the criteria for being legal combatants, but don't have the professionalism that defines soldiers. Therefore the distinction is really between legal combatants on the one hand and criminals on the other.

As for how that distinction is made - go back and read the thread.

[Captain Seafort]

So, both sides have to agree that it is a war before a war starts? I'm pretty sure that isn't how it plays out in reality.

You gave "you're occupying my land" as a legitimate excuse for declaring war. Given that the IRA are the ones trying to grab the land from its legitimate owners (i.e. the majority of the population who have repeatedly expressed the design to remain British citizens) and aren't occupying anything, I was simply pointing out that the example wasn't relevant to NI.

[Deepcrush]

I wouldn't use the phrase "terrorist" to describe the CIA's antics - their actions are certainly criminal, but a terrorist is a specific type of criminal.

You may not want to use the phrase terrorist but they are in fact using terror tactics. They are there for terrorists.

I'd also object to defining all legal combatants as "soldiers".

Maybe not all, fair enough. But most would be soldiers. Makes little difference if they are professionals or militia.

There are plenty of militias that fit the criteria for being legal combatants, but don't have the professionalism that defines soldiers.

This is kind of covered above but I'll make sure to be clear. A militia is still an armed and organized force. They are soldiers, just not professionals.

Therefore the distinction is really between legal combatants on the one hand and criminals on the other.

And my question still stands. How do you know the difference between the two?

As for how that distinction is made - go back and read the thread.

I did before I asked you guys anything. My question wasn't answered by anyone so now I'm asking up front.

[Tsukiyumi]

So, both sides have to agree that it is a war before a war starts? I'm pretty sure that isn't how it plays out in reality.

You gave "you're occupying my land" as a legitimate excuse for declaring war. Given that the IRA are the ones trying to grab the land from its legitimate owners (i.e. the majority of the population who have repeatedly expressed the design to remain British citizens) and aren't occupying anything, I was simply pointing out that the example wasn't relevant to NI.

Okay, I agree with you that the majority there want to remain under British rule, but the minority, who don't want British rule still have more claim to that territory than your country does.

Personally, I'd like most of Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Colorado back. Am I going to go shoot people over it? Not today.

[Aaron]

And my question still stands. How do you know the difference between the two?

Legally? Short and simple:

Uniform identifiable at a distance, ID card, weapons in the open=soldier/partisan (more leeway exists for partisans, their uniform could be a white armband for example)

Non of the above=criminal

But I mentioned this before, this is just a semantics game at the troop level. It only comes into play when POW's are taken and then it becomes a job for the officers to figure out who's who. Hence why most of the NATO nations in Afghanistan treat prisoners as POW's when taken and deal with the specifics when it's not a two way range.

[Deepcrush]

So then a terrorist can be a soldier so long as he is part of something that in known. And then the same is true in reverse. Fair enough Kendall.

[Aaron]

So then a terrorist can be a soldier so long as he is part of something that in known. And then the same is true in reverse. Fair enough Kendall.

Well "terrorist" isn't a term that has any standing in either the Geneva Conventions or the Hague Convention, but if they don't follow any of the criteria layed out above then they are legally considered criminals and supposed to be handed over to the host nation or detained until such time as the host nation has a proper legal system.

But you mentioned earlier how some of the SF guys operate with no uniform, no id and concealing weapons? Then they could be liable to the exact treatment being given to the "terrorists" or summarily executed as spies if they pulled that in Pakistan.

[Tsukiyumi]

...But you mentioned earlier how some of the SF guys operate with no uniform, no id and concealing weapons? Then they could be liable to the exact treatment being given to the "terrorists" or summarily executed as spies if they pulled that in Pakistan.

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.

[Aaron]

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.

Keep in mind that I am only aware of one case of this happening since WWII. And that was in Vietnam, if any Western nation pulled that today the party that did it would likely be hung from the highest tree in the land. Actually there's a case of something similar happening right now in Canada, though with a POW.

[Aaron]

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.

Whoops, sorry. In order for this to apply they actually have to be wearing their enemies uniform. Like American SF guys wearing a Pakistani Army uniform.

Edit: Fuck this stuff is hard to keep straight.