According to the laws of war morals don't matter. Un-uniformed combatants no matter what side are illegal.CameronPoe wrote:
What people regard as moral, which differs from person to person and culture to culture, is not based on technicalities.SgtHeihn wrote:
Technically, yes. But remember, history is written by the victors.
So you are eliminated from defending your country if you cant afford a uniform ?SgtHeihn wrote:
According to the laws of war morals don't matter. Un-uniformed combatants no matter what side are illegal.CameronPoe wrote:
What people regard as moral, which differs from person to person and culture to culture, is not based on technicalities.SgtHeihn wrote:
Technically, yes. But remember, history is written by the victors.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
One of the points to having a uniform is so you can be discerned from fellow civilians.... Thats generally a good thing when your trying to limit civilian casualties dont you think?Varegg wrote:
So you are eliminated from defending your country if you cant afford a uniform ?SgtHeihn wrote:
According to the laws of war morals don't matter. Un-uniformed combatants no matter what side are illegal.CameronPoe wrote:
What people regard as moral, which differs from person to person and culture to culture, is not based on technicalities.
Did I write the Geneva Accords?Varegg wrote:
So you are eliminated from defending your country if you cant afford a uniform ?SgtHeihn wrote:
According to the laws of war morals don't matter. Un-uniformed combatants no matter what side are illegal.CameronPoe wrote:
What people regard as moral, which differs from person to person and culture to culture, is not based on technicalities.
I don't have any respect for a force that hides behind a civilian population, launching attacks that damages non combatants.
Most resistance groups in Europe actually had arm bands or scarfs that afforded them some protection under the Geneva Convention. If the Nazi's chose to honor that....
Do you hear about US/UK troops in Iraq or Afghanistan executing captured insurgents?
And my point is that the 'laws of war' are bullshit and are only obeyed when it is expedient to do so. Hence Hiroshima bomb was detonated instead of using military manpower to charge the Japanese beaches.SgtHeihn wrote:
According to the laws of war morals don't matter. Un-uniformed combatants no matter what side are illegal.CameronPoe wrote:
What people regard as moral, which differs from person to person and culture to culture, is not based on technicalities.SgtHeihn wrote:
Technically, yes. But remember, history is written by the victors.
I regard Guantanamo Bay as a breach of the Geneva Convention, although semantics are used to justify it: will the US be prosecuted? You bet they won't...
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-10-20 13:35:28)
Tell that to the russian partisans that drove the nazi bastards back to berlin with their balls chopped off.God Save the Queen wrote:
By not being uniformed, you are by definition breaking recognized and agreed upon international law, breaking the law is a crime. criminals commit crimes. blending in with a non combatant population is illegal and immoral, plain and simple.CameronPoe wrote:
Sorry buddy, completely untrue. Sometimes the strong are the wicked and the weak are the oppressed. For the weak to don a uniform would be suicide.God Save the Queen wrote:
non uniformed combatants are criminals
Guantanamo holds non-uniformed individuals who aren't protected by the GC.
In reference to hiroshima, you have to take into context how many more would have died if they weren't used. If storming the beaches had been used, is likely many thousands if not millions more civilians would have been killed in the ensuing battles.
In reference to hiroshima, you have to take into context how many more would have died if they weren't used. If storming the beaches had been used, is likely many thousands if not millions more civilians would have been killed in the ensuing battles.
Doesn't matter on Hiroshima MOAB it's still what would be classified as a war crime. Pure and simple. Interpretation of law does not include 'ifs and buts'. I disagree with you on Gitmo. The Taliban don't wear uniform fullstop, perhaps because they can't fucking afford ones. The definition of an army as uniform-wearing I steadfastly disagree with as a point of principle. It's outdated.M.O.A.B wrote:
Guantanamo holds non-uniformed individuals who aren't protected by the GC.
In reference to hiroshima, you have to take into context how many more would have died if they weren't used. If storming the beaches had been used, is likely many thousands if not millions more civilians would have been killed in the ensuing battles.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-10-20 13:42:21)
A more proper comparison would be to say if someone joined the military to kill some Muslims, and another person who joined to kill non-Muslim infidels. In this case, they're both extremists.Braddock wrote:
I've heard a lot of people (on this forum and elsewhere) claim that they signed up to the military primarily because they wanted "to see some action". This "action" one can generally assume to be the opportunity to experience a real-life battlefield environment, the opportunity to operate one's weaponry, and ultimately the opportunity to kill another human being. Oftentimes it seems the identity of "the enemy" is only a secondary detail.
My question is what is the difference between this mentality and that of a Muslim extremist who signs up to a terror group for the opportunity to "kill some infidels"?
Is it simply that the mentality of the soldier is one of cold, detached professionalism while that of the extremist is fueled by hatred and intense emotion? Because at the end of the day people get killed whatever way you look at it and both sides believe they are killing "the enemy".
Someone who joined for "some action" is different from someone who joined with the strict purpose of killing non-muslims. See above the a comparison with someone like that.
Hell, I'd bet that there's a few people out there that are joining the insurgents/terrorists just because they want to see some action too.
And then there's the other type, people who do it for money. I'd say this is what most people are in it for. Whether that's signing up to the military because they give you a paycheck, or planting an IED because AQ will give you some money if you do that (I was listening to this on the radio yesterday, apparently a hell of a lot of people are simply siding with AQ for money, even the US do this with them too)
People who have actually been to Iraq can probably talk on it more, they (radio programme) have a figure of about 40%, the number of people who are planting IED's etc, who are just doing it for money.
Or they choose not to wear them so that they can blend in with the population. You can afford to get loads of weapons and munitions, you could get hold of crude uniforms.CameronPoe wrote:
Doesn't matter on Hiroshima MOAB it's still what would be classified as a war crime. Pure and simple. Interpretation of law does not include 'ifs and buts'. I disagree with you on Gitmo. The Taliban don't wear uniform fullstop, perhaps because they can't fucking afford ones. The definition of an army as uniform-wearing I steadfastly disagree with as a point of principle. It's outdated.M.O.A.B wrote:
Guantanamo holds non-uniformed individuals who aren't protected by the GC.
In reference to hiroshima, you have to take into context how many more would have died if they weren't used. If storming the beaches had been used, is likely many thousands if not millions more civilians would have been killed in the ensuing battles.
An army will wear whatever it takes to win or to not lose. I will never condemn the IRB, the French Resistance, the Russian Partisans or the Cuban revolutionaries for their methods. If they purposely kill civilians I will. But not for trying to hide oneself from the enemy.M.O.A.B wrote:
Or they choose not to wear them so that they can blend in with the population. You can afford to get loads of weapons and munitions, you could get hold of crude uniforms.
Yes, fighting a war without a uniform is illegal. That much is settled.
Whether committing that particular crime is immoral is highly debatable. It comes down to whether you consider morals as stemming FROM the law, the law being based on morals, or whether you consider morals and the legal system as largely separate ideologies.
Personally, I do not believe that morals come from the law. There were many laws that I consider immoral (slavery, "separate but equal" lies, voting rights, some types of statutory rape, etc). IMO, just because it is a law, does not necessarily mean it is right...just as some things which are immoral (IMO) are not illegal.
Whether committing that particular crime is immoral is highly debatable. It comes down to whether you consider morals as stemming FROM the law, the law being based on morals, or whether you consider morals and the legal system as largely separate ideologies.
Personally, I do not believe that morals come from the law. There were many laws that I consider immoral (slavery, "separate but equal" lies, voting rights, some types of statutory rape, etc). IMO, just because it is a law, does not necessarily mean it is right...just as some things which are immoral (IMO) are not illegal.
blending in with people that want nothing to do with the fighting has nothing to do with law and everything to do with morality
That's quite a specific example. If the guerillas are not fighting a cause supported by the populace then they probably don't have a good or just mandate for war/insurgency. Each example has to be taken on its own particular merits and details. Safehouses for members of the IRB were dotted liberally across the length and breadth of Ireland for instance, fighting a cause that the Irish civilians fully supported.God Save the Queen wrote:
blending in with people that want nothing to do with the fighting has nothing to do with law and everything to do with morality
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-10-20 15:07:36)
Well not in the specific case of people saying they joined the military to "see some action", and I have yet to be shown proof otherwise. I find that rather interesting by the way, considering how the thread hinges on that.ATG wrote:
I disagree.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
and I don't think we have any idiots on the forums in this case.
"Those guys said the moon was green, let's talk about what idiots they are."
"Did they actually say the moon was green?"
"Well, I don't really remember, but I don't generally agree with them so they probably think it's green."
"..."
jord is one of them.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Well not in the specific case of people saying they joined the military to "see some action", and I have yet to be shown proof otherwise. I find that rather interesting by the way, considering how the thread hinges on that.ATG wrote:
I disagree.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
and I don't think we have any idiots on the forums in this case.
"Those guys said the moon was green, let's talk about what idiots they are."
"Did they actually say the moon was green?"
"Well, I don't really remember, but I don't generally agree with them so they probably think it's green."
"..."
I bet the majority of soldiers in the US army believe in God, how retarded is that?There is a difference. When l joined up l wasn't brain washed to belive l get 72 virgins when l die. The majority of people join the forces for adventure and the such. Majority of people become and extrimist because they are brain washed to belive they get 72 virgins on death, others join because they are threatened too and the rest join because they get more money a day firing a weapon at the enemy than they would for doing a different job.
One soldier believes he will get 72 virgins when he dies, the other thinks he will go to some kind of paradise. Both retarded in my book.
Remember, if you're retarded, don't judge other people because their retarded. That makes you plain retarded.
listen to your own adviceMGS3_GrayFox wrote:
Remember, if you're retarded, don't judge other people because their retarded. That makes you plain retarded.
Nobody is talking to you.God Save the Queen wrote:
listen to your own adviceMGS3_GrayFox wrote:
Remember, if you're retarded, don't judge other people because their retarded. That makes you plain retarded.
And I don't judge retards, I make fun of them.
Last edited by MGS3_GrayFox (2008-10-20 16:07:00)
MGS3: The main thing is, is that the guy who believes in 72 virgins is strapping a bomb to himself and detonating it in a market place. That is not a solider.
i know;MGS3_GrayFox wrote:
I bet the majority of soldiers in the US army believe in God, how retarded is that?
how retarded is it for someone to have morals and convictions?
especially ones that they will stand up for
what is the world coming to?!?!
What about the bomber pilot that drops a 500 pound bomb on a building and the collateral damage kills civilians? Is he a soldier?SgtHeihn wrote:
MGS3: The main thing is, is that the guy who believes in 72 virgins is strapping a bomb to himself and detonating it in a market place. That is not a solider.
And how does that make you different to those that blow themselves up to get 72 virgins? Maybe their morals may not be as yours, but they have some.i know;
how retarded is it for someone to have morals and convictions?
especially ones that they will stand up for yikes
what is the world coming to?!?!
And I guess you implied that not believing in a god does not make you able to have morals and convictions? If I'm right, then that shows how closed off you are.
Last edited by MGS3_GrayFox (2008-10-20 16:10:12)
the only 72 virgins that exist are the ones that post in this forum.
"You may not karma the same person in a 24 hour period."God Save the Queen wrote:
the only 72 virgins that exist are the ones that post in this forum.
roflmao
PS That was the 72nd post ... ... Allah has entered the forum ...
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-10-20 16:12:39)
No, he is a airman.MGS3_GrayFox wrote:
What about the bomber pilot that drops a 500 pound bomb on a building and the collateral damage kills civilians? Is he a soldier?SgtHeihn wrote:
MGS3: The main thing is, is that the guy who believes in 72 virgins is strapping a bomb to himself and detonating it in a market place. That is not a solider.
Also, pilots do go out with the intention of killing civilians. The days of mass formation of bombers leveling a city are gone.
He said this where?MGS3_GrayFox wrote:
jord is one of them.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Well not in the specific case of people saying they joined the military to "see some action", and I have yet to be shown proof otherwise. I find that rather interesting by the way, considering how the thread hinges on that.ATG wrote:
I disagree.
"Those guys said the moon was green, let's talk about what idiots they are."
"Did they actually say the moon was green?"
"Well, I don't really remember, but I don't generally agree with them so they probably think it's green."
"..."