The Mosul Attack

[Gem]

War is not about restraint. Can you please list for me the wars which have been won (country not important) by exercising restraint? You may reach as far back into history as you like.

I can give you examples.

During the early years of World War 2, cities were not bombed until the battle of britain. There were two exception, notably in Warsaw in a city in the netherlands. In fact, it's often said that had Hitler not bombed civilian targets, the RAF would not have been able to stem an invasion of the island.

During the Korean War, when the Chinese invaded Korea, McArthur thought that use of the atomic bomb was neccessary. He was dismissed by Truman.

True, the war wasn't "won" in these cases. But these have:

Gulf War I and II, and Afghanistan: Precision Bombing, low casualties, fair treatment of prisoners. I'd call these wars "models" of behavior, and no one can say the U.S. lost these wars.

Examples when restraint is not used:
WW1: Gas.
WW2: Bombing of civilian populations by both sides. I'm not talking about bombing a factory in a civilian city, I'm talking about boming a city to kill its citizens: Dresden, for example.
WW2: Hitler didn't treat commandos according to the Geneva Convention (tortured, executed). As far as I am aware, the Allies did follow it.

And how about the Pacific War in ww2? The japs certainly didn't follow the GC to the letter. That didn't stop the US from restraint.

As for the lack of outrage: The way I see it, making a thread for it would not be long. What is there to discuss? Terrorists use terror. Terrorists do not follow the Geneva convention. Do we doubt this? At least, not people who read the news. And if there is no disagreement, there is no discussion. No discussion, no thread. The USA, however, is a subject of heated discussion because we have different points of view. Hence, we will discuss it. The reason why there is more than a thread is because there is a constant stream of news, facts and ideas running around.

All countries do evil things from time to time in support of their nation. All

First, tell me when any country will admit doing evil for their interests (even noble ones). I'm being sarcastic here.

Second: I agree with you. Countries will do "evil" for their interest. You see that, I see that as well. But why accept it? Inidividuals will do evil for their own benefits, and not you or I accept that. Why should we treat countries to a different standard?

Third: The "PR-PC" is important. The war on terror is just the more public face of the war. The real battle is to make the mainstream and liberal/conservative muslisms, arabs and people of the middle east fight against the fundamentalists. If the USA does acts like Abu Ghraib then they lose a battle for the minds of people. They definatly haven't lost the war, nor do I think they will lose it.

Gem

 

[rikzilla]

You'll find, in the Convention, this passage:



Fourth Geneva Convention

So, it doesn't matter if those insurgents don't play fair, the US is required to abide by the GC. If you don't like it, maybe you should have thought of that before supporting a war against Iraq.


edit Removed "Your poll is - surprise! - badly worded. A better poll would be, "Should all Signatories to the Geneva Convention Adhere to the Geneva Convention"." Bah! Didn't read the poll properly.

Interesting... I'll have to look into the circumstances under which it was negotiated and signed. It makes me wonder right away why any nation would be keen to sign up to play by a set of rules that his most ruthless opponent could ignore with impunity.

-z

 

[Tmy]

It makes me wonder right away why any nation would be keen to sign up to play by a set of rules that his most ruthless opponent could ignore with impunity.

-z

If you get a rep for not follwing the rules, that can haunt you. If you lose the war you get brought up on war crimes. Or in future wars you are not given quarter because you are known as a rule breaker.

Its really not about the terrorists feelings. The issue that binds the US is that they are there to HELP iraqs. To win in Iraq they have to win the hearts of the people. Violating the Gen convention wont accomplish that.

 

[rikzilla]

In order to connect your topic to the poll you have to make the big assumption that the Mosul attack was perpetrated by terrorists. Do we know who was responsible for the attack? Was it Alqueda.??

Zarqawi's group is on record now claiming it. Zarqawi=AQ

You say that the US shouldnt follow the Gen convention becuase the terrorists dont. I dont believe that the MOSUL mortor attack on a military post is a violation of the rules of war. Its kinda hypocrtical to complain "Look at these guys. They are following the rules war. We should then be able to NOT follow those rules in order to defeat them."

Nope...go back and read my post. I'm not advocating anything like jettisoning the GC. First, I don't see how we could gain from it and plenty of ways we could lose. What does burn me though is the amount of negative attention our forces get. They're literally damned if they do, as well as if they don't. Personally I don't think it would matter much if they tossed the GC...sure they'd be roundly condemned for it....and yet they are now anyway.

Just cause a tree falls in Iraq does not mean that AlQueda caused it. Even if you eliminated every AlQueden today, our troops would still be in mortal danger tomorrow. THere are alot of P.O.ed people in Iraq who hate us for different reasons.

And there are also alot who do not...

-z

 

[rikzilla]

The only lesson this provides, I think, is that we're more and more rapidly completely losing control of the ground in Iraq.

In other words, we are starting to be completely, absolutely defeated. We are losing. The USA is a loser now.

We're a joke.

That's what I see happening.

We're a nation of losers. Bankrupt Government (both financially and ethicallhy), currency failing, at risk of both stagflation and now hyperinflation, and our military visibly falling apart.

Speak for yourself. Loser.

-z

 

[rikzilla]

I can give you examples.

During the early years of World War 2, cities were not bombed until the battle of britain. There were two exception, notably in Warsaw in a city in the netherlands. In fact, it's often said that had Hitler not bombed civilian targets, the RAF would not have been able to stem an invasion of the island.

During the Korean War, when the Chinese invaded Korea, McArthur thought that use of the atomic bomb was neccessary. He was dismissed by Truman.

True, the war wasn't "won" in these cases. But these have:

Gulf War I and II, and Afghanistan: Precision Bombing, low casualties, fair treatment of prisoners. I'd call these wars "models" of behavior, and no one can say the U.S. lost these wars.

Examples when restraint is not used:
WW1: Gas.
WW2: Bombing of civilian populations by both sides. I'm not talking about bombing a factory in a civilian city, I'm talking about boming a city to kill its citizens: Dresden, for example.
WW2: Hitler didn't treat commandos according to the Geneva Convention (tortured, executed). As far as I am aware, the Allies did follow it.

And how about the Pacific War in ww2? The japs certainly didn't follow the GC to the letter. That didn't stop the US from restraint.

As for the lack of outrage: The way I see it, making a thread for it would not be long. What is there to discuss? Terrorists use terror. Terrorists do not follow the Geneva convention. Do we doubt this? At least, not people who read the news. And if there is no disagreement, there is no discussion. No discussion, no thread. The USA, however, is a subject of heated discussion because we have different points of view. Hence, we will discuss it. The reason why there is more than a thread is because there is a constant stream of news, facts and ideas running around.



First, tell me when any country will admit doing evil for their interests (even noble ones). I'm being sarcastic here.

Second: I agree with you. Countries will do "evil" for their interest. You see that, I see that as well. But why accept it? Inidividuals will do evil for their own benefits, and not you or I accept that. Why should we treat countries to a different standard?

Third: The "PR-PC" is important. The war on terror is just the more public face of the war. The real battle is to make the mainstream and liberal/conservative muslisms, arabs and people of the middle east fight against the fundamentalists. If the USA does acts like Abu Ghraib then they lose a battle for the minds of people. They definatly haven't lost the war, nor do I think they will lose it.

Gem

Fine post Gem...appreciate your response. However I've got to head back out into the real world again. Please allow me to respond to your post tomorrow sometime.

Regards,
-z

 

[zenith-nadir]

Emotions aside. Since when is attacking a military base considered a terrorist attack.? Isnt that the opposite of the definition of a terror attack?

If a "combatant" attacks a military position - especially when at war - it is not considered an terror attack. If a "combatant" attacks a purely civilian target - bus, restaurant, shopping mall - then it is a terror attack.

Originally posted by Lothian
The Geneva convention applies to prisoners of war. I believe neither side in the War on Terror upholds it. The terrorists ignore it because they are terrorists and America ignores it because the prisoners are not prisoners of war but enemy combatants.

To be considered a combatant under the Geneva convention one must fulfill a few obligations;

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

Since the Gitmo prisoners and the insurgents in Iraq did not and do not follow said "rules" they are considered "unlawful combatants".

 

[gnome]

Gnome, I appreciate your effort to address the topic. I regretted shooting you down. But please feel free to try again.

That's fine, don't pull punches, I need to discuss what you really think or we're all just playing polite and getting nowhere.

War is not about restraint. Can you please list for me the wars which have been won (country not important) by exercising restraint? You may reach as far back into history as you like.

Gem did a fine job on this but my response would be that restraint is exercised whenever we choose the appropriate level of force to apply--or else we'd whip out the nukes in every conflict. Certainly you must agree that in a strict sense we apply restraint in every war. We try to avoid killing unarmed civilians, for example. Hence the phrase, "The better part of valor is discretion."

Well since over 75% of Al Qaeda leadership have been killed or captured....the Afghan people freed to elect their first democratically elected president ever,...and Saddam's terrorism-supporting regime has been toppled,...I must ask you; "What problem do you have with the execution of the WOT?"

Good question. Principally I am concerned with the state of our civil rights domestically in response to the terrorist threat, and the abuse of detainees with unclear legal status. I also believe that insufficient planning was made for the aftermath of fighting the regular Iraqi forces. In addition I don't like framing it as a war, since there is no formal government on the "other side" that we can hope to force into surrender. For example, it is typical to hold prisoners of war until a war is over. When could we say that the "war on terror" would ever be over? This is the problem you run into when you use an inaccurate term with specific legal and political connotations.

Look, this is almost not worth commenting on. The above thought is, at it's heart, hopelessly naive. All countries do evil things from time to time in support of their nation. All.

Then what is the justification for patriotism? Surely there is more reason to love my country than just the fact that I live in it. It seems like the same voices now telling me how naive I'm being were the same ones lauding America for being a beacon of democracy. And yet... total up the number of nations we're fighting to build a democracy in (and yes, you can count Iraq and Afghanistan)... compare that to the number of nations where we are propping up a government that treats its citizens in ways that Americans would be indignant if anyone expected us to live that way.

I don't expect America to be a boy-scout/saint, especially not in the face of uncountable dangers. But there are some lines it horrifies me to see crossed. What happened to "Speak softly and carry a big stick"? Was that naive?

No, not really. The leadership of this country is tasked to do what needs to be done to benefit the nation,...not to make sure that gnome can still love some naive illusion that he worships as "his perfect country". Wake up...you can't have it both ways. If you're for the war then you have to fight it with both eyes open and win. The only purpose of waging a war is to win.

Again, I don't demand perfection. But is there no place for honor in strength? Also, ill-advised tactics can jeapordize the win. "We have to win" doesn't justify actions that are not necessary to win, or that may in fact be counter-productive.

 

[Questioninggeller]

The War of Errorism isn't something that should cause the most powerful nation in the world from throwing out ethical treatment of people who are angry at US invovlement in their country.

 

[fishbob]

Rik:

War is not about restraint. Can you please list for me the wars which have been won (country not important) by exercising restraint? You may reach as far back into history as you like.

Oh, you mean like General George Armstrong Custer's lack of restraint. Yep, he got some good results.

Success in war is about strategy and tactics and careful evaluation of targets and goals - you know, restraint. Not sabre rattling, bring-it-on, bravado, unrestrained Custerdy.

 

[a_unique_person]

I hear the dry rustling of the wings of moonbat trolls...but since they are busy trolling and not addressing the points I made then I will leave them to their mindless twittering.

Gnome, I appreciate your effort to address the topic. I regretted shooting you down. But please feel free to try again.

-z

And **** you too, Rick.

 

[Nikk]

Rik:

Oh, you mean like General George Armstrong Custer's lack of restraint. Yep, he got some good results.

Success in war is about strategy and tactics and careful evaluation of targets and goals - you know, restraint. Not sabre rattling, bring-it-on, bravado, unrestrained Custerdy.

Tsk, tsk , too harsh my friend.

When some dusky British citizens were returned here from Guantanamo bay a few months ago it was revealed that US interrogation had established that they were assisting Mr Bin Laden in Afghanistan at precisely the same time that they were working in England.....possibly in a video store, I can't exactly remember. Surely it is worth a little torture to establish that something like bilocation is possible.

Mr Randi's million is safe for the time being as these chaps seem somewhat unwilling to risk US hospitality at this moment in time.

 

[zenith-nadir]

When some dusky British citizens were returned here from Guantanamo bay a few months ago it was revealed that US interrogation had established that they were assisting Mr Bin Laden in Afghanistan at precisely the same time that they were working in England.....possibly in a video store, I can't exactly remember.

So my question for the newspaper that wrote the "working in the video store" story is how did said persons end up in Gitmo? Did the US invade video stores in Britain?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

If a "combatant" attacks a military position - especially when at war - it is not considered an terror attack. If a "combatant" attacks a purely civilian target - bus, restaurant, shopping mall - then it is a terror attack.To be considered a combatant under the Geneva convention one must fulfill a few obligations;

Since the Gitmo prisoners and the insurgents in Iraq did not and do not follow said "rules" they are considered "unlawful combatants".

If you aren't a combatant under GC, you are treated as a civilian committing a criminal offence, and therefore subject to natural justice which includes being told what the charges are, the right to an advocate, the right to see and respond to evidence used against you, among other things. What it doesn't entail is being locked up in an island and interrogated/tortured indefinitely. So either way, the US is in violation of international law.

 

[zenith-nadir]

If you aren't a combatant under GC, you are treated as a civilian committing a criminal offence....What it doesn't entail is being locked up in an island and interrogated/tortured indefinitely.

If the sky was pink the clouds would be orange.

The Geneva convention is very clear. You are either a "combatant", "unlawful combatant" or "civilian". You have assumed with an "if" statement, that Gitmo prisoners are "civilians" and then extrapolate from that "if" statement that;

the US is in violation of international law.

I on the other hand feel that to be in Gitmo one had to be doing something in order to be sent to Gitmo.

 

[Nikk]

So my question for the newspaper that wrote the "working in the video store" story is how did said persons end up in Gitmo? Did the US invade video stores in Britain?

My point was clearly too subtle for you.

The point is that even if one ignores the legal and ethical aspects brutal interrogation and torture is an extremely unreliable method of extracting information. Clear now.

Frankly I have little sympathy for any British muslim who offered help to the Taleban in any capacity and couldn't care less if they had been knocked off in Afghanistan. On the other hand once they come into the control of a Western power they should be treated either as POW's or under criminal law or if absolutely necessary under some ad hoc system of military justice which offers access to legal advisers, protection against ill treatment and something approaching adherence to the rules of evidence and basic natural justice.

As it is you get unreliable information, a reputation as torturers and more fanatical enemies. Well done.

 

[zenith-nadir]

My point was clearly too subtle for you. The point is that even if one ignores the legal and ethical aspects brutal interrogation and torture is an extremely unreliable method of extracting information. Clear now.

Could you give some examples, (ie: "evidence") of the brutal interrogation and torture at Gitmo? Or is it assumed like the innocence of the Gitmo prisoners?

 

[hgc]

...
I on the other hand feel that to be in Gitmo one had to be doing something in order to be sent to Gitmo.

You are very trusting and respectful of authority. Your attitude is as quaint as the Geneva Conventions.

 

[zenith-nadir]

You are very trusting and respectful of authority. Your attitude is as quaint as the Geneva Conventions.

So it is assumed that I am "very trusting and respectful of authority" because I take the position that to be in Gitmo one had to be doing something in order to be sent there. So be it. Perhaps it's my quaint attitude about the Geneva Convention that is the cause.

 

[a_unique_person]

My point was clearly too subtle for you.

..........

As it is you get unreliable information, a reputation as torturers and more fanatical enemies. Well done.

Believe me, the only thing that works is a blunt instrument.