2 years later, and bin Laden is winning

[Njorl]

Iraq's involvement in terrorism was small compared to the state sponsored efforts of Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya. Their biggest efforts were the rewarding of suicide bombers ($10k-$20k each) in Israel, and safe haven for some discredited terrorist leaders who were being hunted by their own people. They did have some training facilities, but nothing on the scale of the other countries mentioned. Iraq's attempts at Arab hegemony made them many enemies among terrorist organisations.

If support of terrorism were the criterion for invasion, we'd have invaded several other countries first, but it is also incorrect to state that Iraq did not support terrorism at all.

Njorl

 

[Zero]

OK, I should have said 'Iraq has little to do with terrorism, and no known links to 9-11'...it was never a true threat to the U.S., and claiming that invading has had a positive effect on stopping terrorism is wrong. The opposite is probably true, though, and playing right into the terrorists hands, as is the attempt to force democracy on the region.

 

[Zero]

Did you know that if an Iraqi kills an American soldier in Iraq, it is not terrorism? In fact, it is perfectly legal under the Geneva Convention...

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Did you know that if an Iraqi kills an American soldier in Iraq, it is not terrorism? In fact, it is perfectly legal under the Geneva Convention...

Actually, you are almost completely wrong. The Geneva conventions among other things are designed to protect civilians. Part of protecting civilians is mandating that soldiers be identifiable as soldiers. If soldiers and civilians are indistinguishable, then civilians are at risk. This is precisely the problem faced in Iraq (indeed, it is the primary MO of terrorists). Terrorsts (in Iraq and elsewhere) are virtually always dressed in civilian clothes and are therefore virtually always illegal combatants.

A good example of this is the problems we've had at checkpoints - a cab driver pulls up to a check point and detonates a bomb. He's an illegal combatant. The rules of engagement get changed to protect the soldiers at the checkpoint and a few days later a van full of civilians gets hosed. According to the Geneva Convention, those deaths are on the head of the terrorist from a few days before.

H9ow about we stop 'going after' countries without UN support.

No. Did you disagree with our action in Yugoslavia too? Clinton got lucky there, but nevertheless it was the right thing to do.

 

[Zero]

So, how do you explain this statement from the 4th Geneva Convention: "People under foreign military occupation have the right to militarily engage armed uniformed occupation forces."?


(I'm looking it up to give you the context...in either case it is not terrorism.)

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
So, how do you explain this statement from the 4th Geneva Convention: "People under foreign military occupation have the right to militarily engage armed uniformed occupation forces."?

Its pretty simple: There is a difference between an army of conquest and an army of liberation. Even the UN, though they were against the war, considers it liberation, not conquest.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Its pretty simple: There is a difference between an army of conquest and an army of liberation. Even the UN, though they were against the war, considers it liberation, not conquest.

Uhmmm, agreed sorta, as an army of liberation LEAVES once the liberation is done and the POLICE force replaces them, as that is the "ARMY" (the Police) of CIVIL ORDER, that replaces Warrior's once the War is declared OVER.
Otherwise you have an army claiming to be an "Army of Liberation" that is occupying it's (supposedly) "Liberated" frontier, and as Zero has pointed out, quite rightly, an army of occupation can be met with civilian resistance...

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
So, how do you explain this statement from the 4th Geneva Convention: "People under foreign military occupation have the right to militarily engage armed uniformed occupation forces."?


(I'm looking it up to give you the context...in either case it is not terrorism.)

I'm not sure what you're referring to, I've never seen this quote in the Text of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Although this may be relevant:

Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

From that site...From Article 2

Originally from; Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War

"the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them."

As I recall the "State of War" is over...

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Uhmmm, agreed sorta, as an army of liberation LEAVES once the liberation is done and the POLICE force replaces them, as that is the "ARMY" (the Police) of CIVIL ORDER, that replaces Warrior's once the War is declared OVER.

And exactly how long should that take? The US still has a large number of troops in Germany and Japan, but I doubt anyone would consider them US colonies.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
From that site...From Article 2


As I recall the "State of War" is over...

Erm, I suggest you read the entire text, pay particular attention to the portions concerning occupation, text such as this "The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party" and this "even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them."

I'm just wondering where Zero got that quote he posted.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat

I'm just wondering where Zero got that quote he posted.

Some 'Foreign Policy' website, plus several online articles from normally trustworthy sources...


Like I said, I am going to say no more until I track it down one way or the other.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero


Like I said, I am going to say no more until I track it down one way or the other.

Sounds like a good plan, stan!

 

[Zero]

I still stand by the idea that not anyone in Iraq who attacks an American soldier is a terrorist.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
And exactly how long should that take? The US still has a large number of troops in Germany and Japan, but I doubt anyone would consider them US colonies.

Based there, not running the places, right?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by kat
Erm, I suggest you read the entire text, pay particular attention to the portions concerning occupation, text such as this "The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party" and this "even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them."

I'm just wondering where Zero got that quote he posted.

The part you have Italicized is the part I had/have emboldened "...even if not recognized..."
BTW Who is the one not recognizing a State of War??