Targeting of Civilians by Insurgents Must Stop.

Originally posted by Souljah
Report of 180 Types of US Human Rights Violations Since 9/11

Pentagon War Crimes: 250.000 Nagasaki Bombs in Iraq

World Tribunal on Iraq says US killed more in Iraq than Saddam

U.S. admits torture in Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan

Bush's War Creates Terror!

Stop confusing the question which I was attempting to answer (are the ‘insurgents’ war criminals) by adding your personal agenda.

If you would read through many of the tribunal findings and rulings, you would see what is applicable to war crimes and what is not.

Originally posted by Souljah
And what is YOUR True Objective?

To answer the question as posed…….

Originally posted by Souljah
It Starts with the Letter "H".

Honestly.

.

Originally posted by Seekerof
And yet, Souljah, no mention from you concerning whether or not you openly, publically, within ATS, agree and back the insurgents in blatantly targeting and murdering innocent civilains. ..

I dont Agree with Targeting Civilans - but in the End Civilans will pay the Price, just like in EVERY War on this Planet.

During WWII 50 Innocent Civlians Lost Their Lives - now the Word -Innocent- can be Quickly Turned Around, since German Civilians were NOT Innocent for the Russian Troops and for some Allied Troops too.

The Insurgents Target the Enemy Troops which are the Coalition Forces and the New Iraq Army. The Civilans that Collaborate with the Coalition -Occupying- Forces are also the Targets.

Do I Agree with it?

I didnt agree with this War in the First Place - but this is the Result it Produced.

This is the New Iraq - the Biggest Terrorist State in the World, where Everything Goes.

Thanks to Bush/Blair Coalition this Terror is now spreading across the Borders of Iraq.

Suicide Attacks are the Answer to the Invasion of Iraq - pure and Simple RE-action.

Furthermore, still no response from you as to what Islam says concerning these acts.

From a Previous Post:

The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.

Originally posted by cjf
If you would read through many of the tribunal findings and rulings, you would see what is applicable to war crimes and what is not.

And WHO is Going to Answer for all the WAR CRIMES that the Coalition Forces Executed during the Operation "Iraqi Freedom" and After it?

The Belling Of The Cat

Originally posted by Souljah
And WHO is Going to Answer for all the WAR CRIMES that the Coalition Forces Executed during the Operation "Iraqi Freedom" and After it?

That depends on who wins.

Those who win wars generally don't prosecute themselves for war crimes.

Originally posted by Souljah
Furthermore, still no response from you as to what Islam says concerning these acts.

From a Previous Post:

The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.

Thank you for your honest answer.
See, I had faith in you, and felt somewhat sure that you did not condone such actions.

As for the your opinion on how Islam interprets these acts, you quoted another source. You did that because that is your answer and response? Let me ask you, if you were an insurgent being asked to become a martyr for the cause [a suicide bomber] by attacking civilains, and you knowingly knew that your religion, Islam, strictly forbid acts of suicide, and the blatant targeting and killing of innocents, would you still follow the path to martyrdom, 72 virgins and all?

Thats why I asked how you percieved the religious Islamic equation into this, to get your take, not some quoted piece that you agree with.

I do thank you again for your honesty and passion, Souljah, whether I agree with it or not, is another matter.





seekerof

[edit on 23-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
As for the your opinion on how Islam interprets these acts, you quoted another source. You did that because that is your naswer and response? Let me ask you, if you were an insurgent being asked to become a martyr for the cause [a suicide bomber] by attacking civilains, and you knowingly knew that your religion, Islam, strictly forbid acts of suicide, and the blatant targeting and killing of innocents, would you still follow the path to martyrdom, 72 virgins and all?

Well Christianity also FORBIDS to Kill your Fellow Man - but the US Troops are still doing that - so if they are Soldiers and if they were sent by a President of the United States then they were given the Word of God that they can KILL when ordered?

Who Ordered them?

Saint Michael the Archangel?

God Maybe?

And tell me, Sir - what Religion does not Forbid the Targeting of Civilans, but in the End they end up Dying in Big Numbers anyway?

What kind of Religious Mentality did the Nicaragua Contras have?

Or the Pol-Pot Regime in Cambodia?

Makes me Wonder when is the Killing of Innocents "Approved" and when its called "a Crime".

Again a True Sign that the History is Written by the Winners and the Looser has no Right to Tell his side of the Story - but there is ALWAYS the Other side of the story...

Here in Yugoslavia after the World War 2 there were "Big Clean Ups" of the Collaborators of the Nazi Regime and Partisan Troops EXECUTED alot of People that were collaborating with the Enemy during the WWII.

Were they Right or Wrong?

My GrandFather was Shot in the Back by one of the Collaborating Forces Ambushes and He Died on April the 1st 1945 - just Before the End of the War.

What Would You do with these People that Collaborate with the Occupying Forces?

[edit on 23/7/05 by Souljah]

Originally posted by Majic
Those who win wars generally don't prosecute themselves for war crimes.

Very true, I also agree with Souljah’s statement…

Originally posted by Souljah
Again a True Sign that the History is Written by the Winners and the Looser has no Right to Tell his side of the Story - but there is ALWAYS the Other side of the story...

No matter how "flat" you press something, there are always at least two sides….

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by cjf
If you would read through many of the tribunal findings and rulings, you would see what is applicable to war crimes and what is not.

And WHO is Going to Answer for all the WAR CRIMES that the Coalition Forces Executed during the Operation "Iraqi Freedom" and After it?

Military Necessity: .....a very grey area.

Military necessity permits a belligerent, subject to the laws of war, to apply any amount and kind of force to compel the complete submission of the enemy with the least possible expenditure of time, life and money.

In general, it sanctions measures by an occupant necessary to protect the safety of his forces and to facilitate the success of his operations. It permits the destruction of life of armed enemies and other persons whose destruction is incidentally unavoidable by the armed conflicts of the war; it allows the capturing of armed enemies and others of peculiar danger, but it does not permit the killing of innocent inhabitants for purposes of revenge or the satisfaction of a lust to kill.

Source: United Nations War Crimes Commission. Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals.
(Link)
Note: Does not apply ‘franc-tireurs’.

We are in an illegal ‘war’ for lack of a better term. We invaded a sovereign nation under false pretenses. To wage an illegal war is a war crime.

Maybe the use of the term ‘war crime’ is not quite accurate since from the US’s point of view, it’s not a legal, declared WAR. However targeting and killing non-combatants is a “crime against humanity” without regard to whether or not a WAR is underway. For the purposes of this discussion, I am using “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” synonymously.

If the insurgents are targeting innocent (non-collaborating) civilians then yes, they are committing war crimes.

If the insurgents are targeting people that are perceived as collaborating with a foreign occupying force, then I don’t believe it is a war crime, as it falls under the purview of guerilla warfare. (That means I’m not sure your source is correct. I’d like to see another source)

Are the insurgents committing war crimes? Probably. Should it stop? Yes.
Are US and coalition forces committing war crimes? Probably. Should it stop? Yes.
Should both sides receive the protections and recognize the limitations imposed by the Geneva conventions? Yes.

A question for you, Seekerof… Assuming you live in the US, if the US were invaded and occupied by a foreign military force, would you not become an insurgent/freedom fighter, even if you didn't like the current leader? And, while I believe you would not purposely target innocent civilians, would you not target collaborators, civilian or not? And would your first concern be of whether or not it was legal?

Originally posted by Souljah
Well Christianity also FORBIDS to Kill your Fellow Man -

It does? Did you come up with that on your own or did someone tell you that? I'm a Christian and that's news to me. Murder is forbidden, not defensive killing. Soldiers are defenders. If a President orders a soldier to defend his country by invading a nation, then that man or woman is not guilty of murder. It's called righteous judgment on God's part, not judging a man for his ignorance, or for obeying a ruler. If a man's conscience tells him that what he is doing is wrong, then that man is obligated as a Christian to do something about it.

Did you know that in the law of God, cities were set aside for men and women to flee to, if they killed someone by accident? You see Jews, Christians, and Muslims understand that God judges the heart, and that you cannot hide what you think from God, and you're judged accordingly, in finances, life, etc... If someone is shooting at you to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself and your buddies, or the right to defend a people "against the atrocities of a madman," who "gasses his own people". That's why many of you do not understand why there was such a smokescreen of WMD and the atrocities of Sadaam. The president and his staff understand that much of America is Christian and there HAD to exist a moral justification of going to war, or the troops would not have the heart to fight. You cannot say, "We need their oil to leverage the future, and we want to fight the Jihad war on Iraqi soil," since that is anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, anti-humanity, and downright evil to destroy another country for the leverage of your own.


16: The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
A question for you, Seekerof… Assuming you live in the US, if the US were invaded and occupied by a foreign military force, would you not become an insurgent/freedom fighter, even if you didn't like the current leader? And, while I believe you would not purposely target innocent civilians, would you not target collaborators, civilian or not? And would your first concern be of whether or not it was legal?

Do not 'blur' the lines and differences here, k?

Having served in Pararescue for 6 years, having been in the 1st Gulf War, and having been involved in a couple of classified or deemed unknowns, my answer would be flat out no. Neither would I commit an act of suicide bombing against innocent civilains.

My fight is with the occupying forces, not the innocents.
You do realize that during the whole of the American Revolution, the revolutionaries never blatantly targeted innocent civilains, never blatantly targeted innocents with suicide bombings, even if they collaborated with the enemy.

An enemy invades and occupies the US, be assured, just as the American revolutionists did, leaders would be selected, armies or units would be created, etc. You see, terrorists or insurgents that have to resort to the use of suicide bombings or who resort to blatantly targeting and murdering innocent civilains are fighting against the spread of freedom. The proper fight, utilizing the civilized rules or codes of war, allow true and real freedom fighters and revolutionists to fight an oppressive force while spreading freedom. There is a distinct difference here, if one looks carefully.

The use of terrorism, by means of suicide bombings targeting innocent civilains, never gains real freedom, it surpresses it. Terrorism used as a means to gain freedom is a myth, a mistaken perception, for the use of terrorism rarely if ever works to obtain its ultimate goals, much less real freedom.

Contrast and compare the above mentions with the actions of insurgents and so-called "freedom fighters" in Iraq, and ask yourself are they spreading freedom or are they against the spread of real freedom....? And after you answer that, compare your answer to what the majority of Iraqis think and feel. Have not the majority of Iraqi leaders, be they sect leaders or government, condemned the targeting of innocent civilains? True insurgents or freedom fighters fight the occupying military force, never blatantly targeting and murdering innocent civilains. The insurgents and so-called "freedom fighters" in Iraq are doing the opposite: they are mainly going against the innocent civilains and rarely squaring up against the US-led Coalition military forces.





seekerof

[edit on 23-7-2005 by Seekerof]

This thread seems to be lumping all insurgents in Iraq into a single "terrorist" pile where they appear to all be alleged as attacking non-combatant civilians. I have yet to read that this is the case in Iraq. Within the last few weeks there were reports about the current U.S. administration even starting to admit once again that there are more than just one type of rebel in Iraq.

I condone no violence. The violence currently taking place in Iraq was not happening prior to March 2003 so it is absolutely the fault of the invading force that started the violence that now persists no matter what form it takes shape. Otherwise it wouldn't be happening. Absolutely the targetting of non-combatant civilians by the rebellion must stop. As should the military occupation that is the impetus for the violence. Is either going to happen? I sincerely doubt it.

[edit on 24-7-2005 by Frith]

How about we cut the politics, ideologies, complex analysis, excuses, justifications, classifications and other curleques for a moment and introduce a simple idea:

"Targeting of People by People must stop"

Originally posted by vincere7
Murder is forbidden, not defensive killing. Soldiers are defenders. If a President orders a soldier to defend his country by invading a nation, then that man or woman is not guilty of murder. It's called righteous judgment on God's part, not judging a man for his ignorance, or for obeying a ruler.

Do You mean like Christian German Soldiers were Defedning Themselves against the Jewish Communist Terrorists and Invaded Poland in 1939?

A Certain Point Of View

Originally posted by Souljah
Do You mean like Christian German Soldiers were Defedning Themselves against the Jewish Communist Terrorists and Invaded Poland in 1939?

Souljah, I don't care what everybody else says, I think you're priceless.

The decision as to what constitutes murder versus justifiable homicide is, has been and forever shall be a matter of opinion.

And sharing those, no matter how greatly they may differ, is what ATS is all about.

At least, that's my opinion.

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart


How about we cut the politics, ideologies, complex analysis, excuses, justifications, classifications and other curleques for a moment and introduce a simple idea:

"Targeting of People by People must stop"

Good idea, but it assumes people stop being hypocritical and admit that their own government is wrong...which is unlikely to happen, since many are brainwashed.

Really?

Looks like they are listening.

Breaking News:



The death toll could go higher.

This is the new Iraq!!!

It seems this news is almost daily now, and does not look like there will be any end in the near future.

U.S. occupation of Iraq, democracy and freedom. Building a better Iraq one day, one attack at a time!




[edit on 24-7-2005 by UM_Gazz]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Do not 'blur' the lines and differences here, k?

I don't believe my lines are blurred at all. I was very clear and precise in my answer to your question. I was also very clear and precise in my question of you. And to be sure I understand, your answer is:

no.

You would not become an insurgent/freedom fighter and you would not target collaborators.I also take from your response that you would be open to joining a more organized army (if it existed) to fight the oppressors. And that's fine. That's a valid and honorable choice, and certainly one that should be made by each individual. I would however make a different choice. And mine is valid and honorable as well. More on my choice below.

An enemy invades and occupies the US, be assured, just as the American revolutionists did, leaders would be selected, armies or units would be created, etc.

I'm not at all sure this would happen. When Iraq (for example) was invaded, it was overwhelmed. In making a comparison, putting myself in their shoes, so to speak, I'm not sure the means would exist to 'select leaders and create army units'. And I'm not sure the insurgents in Iraq haven't done something similar. For all we know maybe they are working out of a central organization. I don't see how that makes a difference anyway.

I do know that here, where I live, there is no military within at least 2 hours except for the local recruiting office where approximately 4 military personnel hang out drinking coffee. If the US were invaded, my area would be of no concern to the US military. They wouldn't rush in here to organize leaders and armies to save the townspeople around here. I would consider that the job of the local, able citizens. Of which I am one.

You see, terrorists or insurgents that have to resort to the use of suicide bombings or who resort to blatantly targeting and murdering innocent civilains are fighting against the spread of freedom. The proper fight, utilizing the civilized rules or codes of war, allow true and real freedom fighters and revolutionists to fight an oppressive force while spreading freedom. There is a distinct difference here, if one looks carefully.

You may be right. The insurgents in Iraq may be fighting for control of their own country as opposed to a Western ideal of freedom. I think they have that right. If they wanted the Western ideal of 'freedom', then they probably wouldn't be fighting. But if they want control of their own country to run in the way that they see fit, whether it fits with the US's concept of freedom or not, then I don't really see why they shouldn't fight for what they want.

The use of terrorism, by means of suicide bombings targeting innocent civilains, never gains real freedom, it surpresses it. Terrorism used as a means to gain freedom is a myth, a mistaken perception, for the use of terrorism rarely if ever works to obtain its ultimate goals, much less real freedom.

(You keep bringing up innocent civilians and I'd just like to point out that we agree on that point. Targeting innocent civilians is a Bad Thing. )

To me, it doesn't matter whether one uses a suicide bomb, a car bomb, a machine gun, a tank or a big stick, targeting and killing the enemy is what fighting and war is all about. Why is a suicide bomb terrorism and a machine gun is proper war?

In the context of the Iraq Conflict, the label "terrorist" is largely a matter of perception. To the people on their side, they're 'resistance fighters' regardless of the weapons they're using. The French resistance fighters in WWII were 'terrorists' from the point of view of the German army.

I get the impression that in many people's minds, because they are our enemy and they're using unconventional tactics, that makes them 'terrorists'. To me the reality is they are our enemy and they're using the tactics they have available to fight an occupying force to gain control of their country. They don't have tanks and Apache helicopters, or I'm sure they'd use them.

Contrast and compare the above mentions with the actions of insurgents and so-called "freedom fighters" in Iraq, and ask yourself are they spreading freedom or are they against the spread of real freedom....?

Again, you're probably right. And this is very important. They are not interested in freedom and probably don't even have an accurate concept of what real freedom is. They've probably never seen it and certainly not experienced it. They want control of their own country to run it as they see fit. Not as we see fit. They want freedom from the occupying force (hence freedom fighter), not freedom in the Western sense of the word, as in a free society. And that should be their choice. You may disagree with them, but that doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means you disagree with them.

And after you answer that, compare your answer to what the majority of Iraqis think and feel. Have not the majority of Iraqi leaders, be they sect leaders or government, condemned the targeting of innocent civilains? True insurgents or freedom fighters fight the occupying military force, never blatantly targeting and murdering innocent civilains.

I think we've beat the 'innocent civilian' horse to death. In fact, I think it's halfway embedded into the ground.

The insurgents and so-called "freedom fighters" in Iraq are doing the opposite: they are mainly going against the innocent civilains and rarely squaring up against the US-led Coalition military forces.

If I'm not mistaken, their main target has been the Iraqi police force, who they consider collaborators, not innocent.

If your basic question is about the morality or legality of targeting non-combatant, non-collaborative, non-supportive, truly innocent civilians (i.e. women and children who have nothing to do with the occupying force) then we agree. Our opinions obviously differ on anything that goes beyond that.

Agreed, but the Targeting of Civilians by Governments must also stop. Have the majority of you already forgotten what transpired on September the 11th? A recent ATS Poll would seem to suggest otherwise.

The phrase "the Pot calling the Kettle black" immediately comes to mind, whether it be the War against Terror or the War against Drugs, both are doing absolutely nothing except fuelling the Fire, literally.

Opium Salad with Government sponsored Terror Burgers and Fries, anyone?







[edit on 113131p://260711 by MERC]

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
"Targeting of People by People must stop"

AMEN, TO THAT!

Originally posted by Majic
Souljah, I don't care what everybody else says, I think you're priceless.

The decision as to what constitutes murder versus justifiable homicide is, has been and forever shall be a matter of opinion.

And sharing those, no matter how greatly they may differ, is what ATS is all about.

At least, that's my opinion.

Thank You Mister Majic.

Much RESPECT for Your Opinion.



[edit on 25/7/05 by Souljah]

seekerof

Neither would I commit an act of suicide bombing against innocent civilains.

My fight is with the occupying forces, not the innocents.

Nor would Iraqi paramilitaries or underground militaries in situ.

Best guess answer is that:

1. Indiscriminant bombings of civilian populations are being undertaken by counterinsurgency groups under aegis of CIA/MI6/Allied SpecOps/Mossad...

2. Group killings, ie 5, 10, 30 people found dead in remote areas with a round to the head...could be either side. The guerillas willl act to illeminate traitors amongst them (as did the French Maquis and Tito's partisans in WWII), death squads we arm & support will do the same for their own ends.

3. Targetted Killings of VIP Individuals, again can be either side based on who benefits more.

War is confusing, and made moreso without a program! Can't tell the players without a program...