[Lerkfish]

please read the entire story

Gotta love this doublespeak:

"These measures are not punitive in nature. They are strictly targeting those responsible for recent attacks against the coalition and the infrastructure used repeatedly to sustain those attacks," the spokesman said.

so...how is that NOT punitive?

"I think that as commanders, we might have been a little bit reluctant previously to use aerial gunships AC-130 or U.S. Air Force aircraft and precision-guided munitions," Swannack said.

"Now there's no-holds-barred on what we use. We use what necessary capabilities and combat power that we need to use to go ahead and take the fight to the enemy and also minimize collateral damage."

Asked if the United States risked alienating Iraqis with heavy-handed tactics, Swannack said, "I like to remember what Viscount Slim [a World War II British field marshal] said during the Burma campaign. He said use a sledgehammer to crush a walnut, and that's exactly what we will do. We will use force, overwhelming combat power when it's necessary."

[Lerkfish]

(btw, I've been trying to start this thread all day..server problems)

[rezonate]

And here's me thinking it was only Israel that would demolish the homes of families, just because one member might have been involved in acts of violence. The US knows no bounds it appears, they get to write the so-called rules of International law as they see it. Guatanemo anyone?

I wonder what the world would think if the UK demolished the houses of suspected IRA/UDA members that they suspected of terrorist acts. Might be interesting to see Irish families out on the streets with nowhere to live.

[Echelon]

If they're terrorists or supporting them, I'm all for it.

I don't give 2 yen about some terrorists. Whack 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Echelon:
If they're terrorists or supporting them, I'm all for it.

I don't give 2 yen about some terrorists. Whack 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out.

If.......

[mr. natural]

Echelon imagines himself as a solider...

Yessirree, bob, that "if" is a mighty fine loophole to drive and fly all sorts of star spangled state sponsored acts of terrorism through. But hey, we're the good guys, right? We're just doing our part for the safety, and the purity, by god, of our bodily fluids for the god damn mightiest and best damn nation on earth! Besides, we wipe our bums with toilet paper, not like these camel humpers and their left handed ways, eh? Sheeit, if you asked me, I'd say nuke 'em all. Yesirree. I'm Ecehelon and I'm a complete dick head who can't even find my way to the nearest Marine recruiting office. But i just love imaging what it must like be to kick some terrorist butt... *if* they are terrorists mind you.

[Echelon]

that determination is made by commanders with access to information that far exceeds yours, and accounts by and from Iraqi informants.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Echelon imagines himself as a solider...

Yessirree, bob, that "if" is a mighty fine loophole to drive and fly all sorts of star spangled state sponsored acts of terrorism through. But hey, we're the good guys, right? We're just doing our part for the safety, and the purity, by god, of our bodily fluids for the god damn mightiest and best damn nation on earth! Besides, we wipe our bums with toilet paper, not like these camel humpers and their left handed ways, eh? Sheeit, if you asked me, I'd say nuke 'em all. Yesirree. I'm Ecehelon and I'm a complete dick head who can't even find my way to the nearest Marine recruiting office. But i just love imaging what it must like be to kick some terrorist butt... *if* they are terrorists mind you.

Enough with the personal attacks. You can disagree without all the name calling.

[mr. natural]

My apologies to Echelon. I got carried away.

Also to Lerkfish. This deserves better than I gave it above.

[Nicko]

Wow...demolishing houses....empty houses at that. Where have we seen that before? Oh ya...its *really* effective... because as we all know, if a terrorist doesn't have a house, they can't attack anymore.

meanwhile....

Car Bomb Hits US-Backed Local Council in Iraq
Thu November 20, 2003 02:56 AM ET

RAMADI, Iraq (Reuters) - A car bomb blast struck the offices of a U.S.-appointed local council in the Iraqi town of Ramadi in a string of attacks in the flashpoint town after dark on Wednesday, witnesses said.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=3858771

OOPS! Guess they missed a few.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Echelon:
that determination is made by commanders with access to information that far exceeds yours, and accounts by and from Iraqi informants.

that is your assumption. You don't have access to the information, either.

The real point here is whether the intended goal of such punitive attacks is desirable or effective. As we see today, from the car bomb attack, it is not effective.
Therefore it remains to be determined whether its desirable. You appear to think in the positive, while I disagree.

The problem, as always, is that fighting terrorism with terrorism of your own only serves to galvanize the survivors to commit worse and worse acts of terrorism in retaliation.

Iraqis are not dogs, who can be trained to be obedient by rubbing their noses in sh!t. They're humans, with a memory and a sense of outrage at outrageous acts.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
My apologies to Echelon. I got carried away.

Also to Lerkfish. This deserves better than I gave it above.

no problem. its also interesting to see who gets a public slap for personal attacks and who does not.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
no problem. its also interesting to see who gets a public slap for personal attacks and who does not.

And who is allowed back onto these forums time and time again after being repeatedly banned.

How does that work?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Car Bomb Hits US-Backed Local Council in Iraq

OOPS! Guess they missed a few.

You sound so gleeful, Nicko. What's up with that?

Bombings in Turkey today as well - just goes to show that the War on Terror needs to be a worldwide effort. Every civilized and lawful nation needs to commit resources to this fight. Where weak spots exist, the terrorists will strike. Even Turkey, who has refused to commit troops to Iraq, has been targeted?

Like I've been saying for some time, this is a world war.

[Spliffdaddy]

Sounds like we need to step up the pressure on Iraq.

[Wiskedjak]

Iraqi household - Pre US Demolition:
6 persons, 1 terrorist

Iraqi household - Post US Demolition:
6 people very bitter with the US and nothing left to lose = 6 terrorists where once there was one.

[Spliffdaddy]

We shouldn't have left 6 terrorist supporters alive.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
We shouldn't have left 6 terrorist supporters alive.

making those who demolish the house terrorists

[version]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
We shouldn't have left 6 terrorist supporters alive.

You're such a fool, you really are a miracle of stupidity.

As someone mentioned earlier, I'd love to see the day British troops march into the US, and blow up, and kill every fcuked up inbred American who supports the IRA, and Loyalist terrorists in Ireland.
I really wish that would happen, and rid the world of 'tards like you.

[Spliffdaddy]

I'm armed, tho.

[BoomStick]

The people who think going after insurgents is so bad need to get some plane tickets and a bullhorn.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by BoomStick:
The people who think going after insurgents is so bad need to get some plane tickets and a bullhorn.

Going after insurgents is not bad. Going after the family members of insurgents IS bad and no better than flying jetliners into office buildings.

[BoomStick]

Oh yeah, that's a real fair comparison.

Let's see, going after insurgents, killers are tracked down and their bases of operations destroyed. Innocents get new homes courtesy of the SeaBees and US government.

Flying a load of innocent passengers after MURDERING the crew into a building filled with 5000 INNOCENT people sending THOUSANDS to their death.


Yep, that's the same.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
We shouldn't have left 6 terrorist supporters alive.

hmm...I'm curious how you're able to differentiate between the Iraqis you liberated in your humanitarian zeal and the Iraqis you wish to assassinate in your militaristic zeal as an occupying force.

height?

weight?

eye color?

sex?

and how many of these things can be determined before the shells hit the target?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You sound so gleeful, Nicko. What's up with that?

Bombings in Turkey today as well - just goes to show that the War on Terror needs to be a worldwide effort.

Or, conversely, that the present efforts in the war on terror are counterproductive.

Interesting spin doctoring.
First, you guys claim the war on terror is working because there AREN"T any terrorist attacks. Then, when the attacks come you claim its working and it proves you need to redouble the campaign.

can't have it both ways.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Or, conversely, that the present efforts in the war on terror are counterproductive.

Interesting spin doctoring.
First, you guys claim the war on terror is working because there AREN"T any terrorist attacks. Then, when the attacks come you claim its working and it proves you need to redouble the campaign.

can't have it both ways.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
[B]First, you guys claim the war on terror is working because there AREN"T any terrorist attacks. Then, when the attacks come you claim its working and it proves you need to redouble the campaign./B]

What attacks have "come" on US soil that you refer to?

[Powerbook]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
hmm...I'm curious how you're able to differentiate between the Iraqis you liberated in your humanitarian zeal and the Iraqis you wish to assassinate in your militaristic zeal as an occupying force.

height?

weight?

eye color?

sex?

and how many of these things can be determined before the shells hit the target?

I have to quote from Full Metal Jacket...
Helicopter gunner: "Anyone who runs is V.C! Anyone who stands still is well-disciplined V.C!!"

PB.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Going after insurgents is not bad. Going after the family members of insurgents IS bad and no better than flying jetliners into office buildings.

Unless the house that is destroyed is owned exclusively by the person that committed the offence, destroying the house is not only bad, it's also a war crime. By keeping those guys in Guantanamo, by engaging in this sort of action, the US is effectively throwing the Geneva Conventions out of the window. Let's not hear any whining the next time some foreign army doesn't play by the rules of war.

Article 33 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
First, you guys claim the war on terror is working because there AREN"T any terrorist attacks. Then, when the attacks come you claim its working and it proves you need to redouble the campaign.

Well said.

[version]

Yeah, you gotta love that way of thinking by the Bush cabal, and the US Gov. Bunch of maniacs.

They cry when their soldiers are paraded on Al-Jazeera tv, then I watch on BBC, FOX, of Iraqi POWs being blindfolded, and dragged on tv. Hypocrites, and that's not to mention the very public display of Saddam's sons.

The rule seems to suit the US when it's needed and to hell with actual law.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Unless the house that is destroyed is owned exclusively by the person that committed the offence, destroying the house is not only bad, it's also a war crime.

Troll, you have a bad tendency to make ridiculously overbroad and inaccurate statements about international law -- I guess on the assumption that people reading won't know any better. Sometimes you are just overoptimitic about the state of international law. But in this case, you are simply wrong. Yes, colletive punishment is illegal, but you make a wild assumption that this is what is happening here. The test for whether a target can be engaged has nothing to do with title to the property. A target does not become a legitimate military target just because it happens to be owned by a combatant no matter how evil we think he is. Nor does title protect a building that is otherwise a legitimate military objective.

The test that actually applies under humanitarian law here is the general one that applies in all war zones. That is, military necessity and proportionality. That is a case-by-case analysis that has to be made by military commanders on the ground, not lefty lawyers with a bad attitude looking to lob war crime charges around.

Here is how the test actually plays out. A building used as cover for the launching of military attacks, one that is used to harbor combatants, or one that could be used for either of the above is a danger to troops and civilians. It therefore almost certainly meets the test of military necessity and so it can be engaged. If the building was used in attacks previously, is being used in attacks currently, or is likely to be used in attacks, then destroying the building probably also meets the test of necessity. But to meet that test, the force used is supposed to be the minimum reasonably necessary. I take it as a lawyer you understand that reasonably in this case means that the circumstances at the time must be taken into account. A commander is not obliged to lose troops to protect property. And he certainly doesn't have to lose the battle.

Certain targets, of course, are presumed to be protected. For example, religious buildings. Deliberately targeting Mosques as Mosques would be a war crime. But targetting a Mosque that is being used as a base for military operations (say, by a sniper) would not be a war crime. That is because targetting the Mosque in that situation meets the test of military necessity. On the other hand, destroying the Mosque by blowing a dam flooding an entire valley probably would fail the proportionality test. Blowing that dam would probably be a war crime.

You seem to stack things very much in favor of the guerillas, but international humanitarian law is not so one-sided. For example, in in the Mosque being used by a sniper example, the war criminal is the sniper. Combatants may not use protected buildings as cover for their military operations, even if they think they are freedom fighters. The same goes for combatants who hide among civilian populations. By doing so they endanger those civilian non-combatants. Endagering civilian non-combatants fo r military advantage is a war crime.

International humanitarian war is not a weapon designed to ensure that one side wins. It is not a device for lefty international lawyers to stack the deck in favor of gureillas that they clearly sympathize with. International humanitarian law is designed to restrain both sides in war and above all to mitigate the suffering of innocent civilians. So how about being a little more balanced in your assessments for once, OK? It's bad enough that you misstate public international law. It's really bad that you do so in such a one-sided manner. If you want to point to war criminals, how about for once doing so at the ones who are really violating international law. How about the people who blow up civilians, kill humanitarian workers, and kill diplomats from third countries like Jordan, Syria, and the United Nations? When will you write screeds about the people who do that?

Edit: Damn, I have to get out of here again. I can't stand the BS and agendas. that get hurled around here. One day is too much.

[Spliffdaddy]

One day was enough to squelch the misinformation.

Thanks for stopping by. It's always good to see you.

[version]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Edit: Damn, I have to get out of here again. I can't stand the BS and agendas. that get hurled around here. One day is too much.

Yeah you should quite with the cr@p talk mate and the agenda. You sound like an apologist.

I'm glad we sorted that out, that wholly useful explanation of International Law, but you missed one point, and that is perception, and duty of a nation to behave in a manner that it promotes.

So while we're at it, I want Al-Qaeeda to re-write their rules, killing of civilians on the mainland of the US is excusable if it meets their objectives.

Come back and talk to me when your country is nothing but a bombed out backwater, in which the rest of the world grew sick of hearing from; then spout this sh!t.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Troll, you have a bad tendency to make ridiculously overbroad and inaccurate statements about international law -- I guess on the assumption that people reading won't know any better.

No wonder you want to get out of here. How long did it take for you to break the forum rules? Two posts? Three posts?

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The test for whether a target can be engaged has nothing to do with title to the property.

What are you talking about engaging targets for? This operation was about "destroying infrastructure used by the Resistance." And although this general was more careful with his words than his Fallujah counterpart, this just smacks of the response to the Chinook downing where the army stated that the purpose was to punish the village.

You're assuming that the house represents a threat. I'm assuming the house is being destroyed to punish people. I think it's an interpretation of what's happening on the ground that differentiates us, not the law.

The Geneva Conventions say you can't punish people who haven't committed an offence. You also can't collectively punish people. So, unless the destruction of a civilian house is done in punishment of the person who owns the house, then it is prohibited. This is not just my interpretation of international law Simey. Israel's destruction of Palestinian homes apparently used by terrorists has been criticised as illegal under Article 33 too and the US was recently accused of war crimes when it destroyed Iraqi crops. You may have a different interpretation - you're free to it. Perhaps these homes weren't owned by anyone. Perhaps they were owned by the people who committed offenses. This is not an isolated attack though. The pattern of terrorising the locals, intimidating them (shall we use the words "shock and awe") into submission is now well-established. I suppose with the Resistance Fighters being invited into civilian homes, the US is planning on demolishing every home in Iraq! http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/10/273227.shtml

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The test that actually applies under humanitarian law here is the general one that applies in all war zones. A commander is not obliged to lose troops to protect property. And he certainly doesn't have to lose the battle.

What war zone? What battle? The mission here is the destruction of infrastrure! This is not responding to an attack. The Resistance fighters were long gone when the house was destroyed.

How about the people who blow up civilians, kill humanitarian workers, and kill diplomats from third countries like Jordan, Syria, and the United Nations? When will you write screeds about the people who do that?

When they start reading MacNN. When them reading what I have to say might somehow have an impact on their leaders continuing to commit crimes! People who read these forums can stop Blair and Bush, they can't stop Al Qaeda. It goes without saying that killing civilians is unacceptable. I speak out against terrorism all the time whether committed by Bush, Sharon, Al Qaeda or anyone else.

[darklinjane]

Originally posted by Powerbook:
I have to quote from Full Metal Jacket...
Helicopter gunner: "Anyone who runs is V.C! Anyone who stands still is well-disciplined V.C!!"

PB.

loved that movie.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Edit: Damn, I have to get out of here again. I can't stand the BS and agendas. that get hurled around here. One day is too much.

well, although I welcome your return, I think you've fallen for the old "I can be blatantly partisan in my posts but those who disagree with me cannot:" ploy.

Its a common failing from macNN conservatives. Nothing they post is even remotely non-partisan, but they spend all their time harping on the partisan nature of the posts of others....instead of addressing actual issues.

Face it, politics IS partisanship. You don't pull any punches with your political leanings, and neither should those who have different political leanings. The trick is to accept that, move on, and simply argue the points and issues raised FROM your own partisan viewpoint and TO the other person's partisan viewpoint.

when you use terms like "lefty lawyers", you are exhibiting your own agenda, as well.

I agree this place is at times frustrating, but what I get frustrated with is the ad hominem tone and lack of respectful civility whereas you cannot handle opposing viewpoints. I CAN perhaps ameliorate or accept my objections, but differing viewpoints and partisan agendas are the stuff politics are made of, so if you cannot tolerate them, I'm not sure why you'd want to discuss politics at all anyways.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by version:
Yeah you should quite with the cr@p talk mate and the agenda. You sound like an apologist.

I'm glad we sorted that out, that wholly useful explanation of International Law, but you missed one point, and that is perception, and duty of a nation to behave in a manner that it promotes.

So while we're at it, I want Al-Qaeeda to re-write their rules, killing of civilians on the mainland of the US is excusable if it meets their objectives.

Come back and talk to me when your country is nothing but a bombed out backwater, in which the rest of the world grew sick of hearing from; then spout this sh!t.

ouch! that was a bit harsh.

[version]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ouch! that was a bit harsh.

I know, and it came out sounding wrong. What I was trying to say, was that if the US (and my grievance is only with the Gov. and its supporters, not the people of the US) is tp act in ways that are re-drawn every time, and become highly suspect in the eyes of international law, and common sense; then I think it's only fair that people shouldn't get upset if other nations do so too. Not that I wish any harm to come to anyone.

[Echelon]

Originally posted by version:
Come back and talk to me when your country is nothing but a bombed out backwater, in which the rest of the world grew sick of hearing from; then spout this sh!t.

Maybe your country's situation is the fault of its own people. Arabs love to make excuses about how the impotence and failures of their societies are the fault of others. Teh West! Whaaaa! The Communists! Whaaa! The Jews, the Zionist Pigs! Whaaaaaaaa! The Great Satan! Wha-whaaaaa-whaaa! You're a terrorist sympathiser and Jew-hater, so I'm thinking you're Muslim, young, disenfranchised, and probably Arab. Possibly within the United States or, far more likely, Western Europe. Your country sucks, so you left. Get the chip off your shoulder, mate , and accept responsibility for your people's obvious failings.

[eklipse]

When did Demonhood make a Kindergarten/Preschool Lounge? - I must've clicked the wrong link......

[kvm_mkdb]

In the last six months, U.S. Army commanders, Pentagon officials and military trainers have sought advice from Israeli intelligence and security officials on everything from how to set up roadblocks to the best way to bomb suspected guerrilla hide-outs in an urban area.

In the last week, U.S. soldiers began leveling houses and buildings used by suspected guerrillas, a tactic long employed by the Israeli military in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, where they use bulldozers to knock down the homes of militants or their families.

"The Americans learned a lot from the Israelis' use of them [bulldozers] in urban combat," a former Israeli official said. "Israelis learned that if you have fighting in an urban area, you just take down the house."

http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-usisrae...,5301295.story

[Troll]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-usisrae...,5301295.story

This is the context in which I was responding. I don't buy the US Army's explanation that this particular operation is not like the one in response to the Chinook downing or the operation to destroy Iraqi crops. I don't buy the argument that the placement of these buildings, or anything else about their nature is inherently so dangerous that they cannot but be destroyed as part of the war that apparently continues in Iraq.

This latest operation seems to me to be part of a wider campaign to intimidate Iraqis. It seems that recently the US has decided to step up the level of force that is applied and to apply it to a broader range of people apparently hoping that the locals will deny the Resistance access to their homes and property for fear of it being destroyed by the US.

Simey and I are clear on the legal interpretation I think; destroying a legitimate target in the course of battle is not a war crime. Punishing people who have not committed an offence and are not involved in armed conflict including by destroying their property (be it crops or houses) is not only a stupid tactic but it is indeed a war crime. The US Army wold be ill-advised to take lessons from the IDF who have neither had any tangible success against the Palestinian Resistance nor are they seen as models of good behaviour by the local or international community.

[eklipse]

The difference between the IDF launching helicopter missile attacks on the Palestinians and the US launching helicopter missile strikes on the Iraqis is that the Iraqis tend to shoot back - with some notable successes.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by eklipse:
The difference between the IDF launching helicopter missile attacks on the Palestinians and the US launching helicopter missile strikes on the Iraqis is that the Iraqis tend to shoot back - with some notable successes.

the other notable difference would be that the IDF is at least fighting over its own perceived territory.
But the US is claiming to be liberating the same people whose houses they are demolishing to punish and intimidate them into turning over other Iraqis. If the shoe were on the other foot....

Imagine in the distant future that a president became a sadistic despot and terrorized american people by watching their every move and anything they said that was antigoverment was held against them as crime. The FBI investigated people who marched against the despot, and citizens were thrown into jail and executed. Elections were held, but regardless of the popular vote, the president had judges which were in his pocket declare him president. Then, one day, France comes over and invades the US. Initially, americans might be relieved to be out from under the despot, but the French continue to hang about, and insist on installing a French-run interim government. We're ordered to come up with a new constitution, and forget what ever history we had.
France keeps saying they'll return the US to us, eventually, but in order to rebuild the damage from the war to overtake us, french companies would rebuild our infrastructure and then control it. They would rebuild our highways, but set up toll booths at every intersection that siphoned money back to france.
Now, say, some of the militia groups that we've always had (and who you always though were nutcases and disagreed with, perhaps) decide to go against the French and start shooting down french helicopters.
Now, the french decide that people aren't informing on the militiamen to their satisfaction. So they start burning wheat fields. When that doesn't work, they start firebombing housing developments and apartment buildings. They shell YOUR building, and you were against the militia in the first place....

Now, imagine......as an american, would those actions convince you to rat out the militia, or would they convince you the militia has a point, and turn you from a non-supporter to a supporter?

Remember, another country has come in and taken over america. Regardless of how benevolent they claim to be, their actions continue to increase in violent retribution. Do you consider them liberators, or enemies?

[Lerkfish]

btw: completely off topic, but I've found since returning to work after 8 weeks off that I cannot post reliably from work. I have to wait until I return home or keep trying to post from work....it works about one in a 20 tries.

anyone else have this problem?