"When I say get rid of them, I wasn't necessarily referring to genocide. What I was referring to is, stand up to them every time they stick up their heads and attack us. We can't afford to say, `We'll try diplomacy.' They don't respond to it. If you look into Islamic tradition, a treaty is only good for five years. We're not dealing with a rational mindset here. We're dealing with madmen."
Islam has a more violent approach to the problem of conversion and the treatment of "infidels" in its founding scripture, the Koran, than Christianity does in the New Testament. Muslims who behave tolerantly are not really following their faith, a fact which those preaching violence use to their advantage.
Too bad the advisor got fired for telling the truth, but that's common in politics.
Apparently you're not familiar with the works of Luke or Matthew, or that guy they followed around and talked about so much.
There's equal support for militant, violent Christianity as there is for militant, violent Islam. As well, the vast majority of Muslims, like the vast majority of Christians, are not violent people who follow a militant religion. As such, your lovely bigoted strawman needs work, unless you're going to demonise Christianity in the same way as you've described Islam.
I seem to recall you had this problem before, where your definition of "terrorist" included the standard practices of the US Army, and you'd defined the overthrow of the US government as a critical goal in the War On Terra.
I seem to recall you had this problem before, where your definition of "terrorist" included the standard practices of the US Army ...
No, it didn't. The US Army does not routinely, as a matter of policy, deliberately kill civilians. And at no point did you produce any evidence that it does, you simply abandoned the argument.
... and you'd defined the overthrow of the US government as a critical goal in the War On Terra.
Only in the alternate reality in which the US Army routinely, as a matter of policy, deliberately kills civilians. And that's "Terror" -- a "War on Terra" would be a war against our planet.
The US Army does not routinely, as a matter of policy, deliberately kill civilians. And at no point did you produce any evidence that it does
Does the name "Abu Ghraib" mean anything to you? How about "Guantanamo Bay"? How about the phrase "dead-checking"? How about any of the incidents involving Blackwater, in Iraq and in *New Orleans*? Did you see any of the videos that the British troops made of themselves firing at random civilian vehicles? How about the name "Steven Green", and in particular what it took to get that particular crime investigated with the obstructions the Army put in the way?
Have you paid any attention to *any* of the news in the last five years? The US Army routinely rounds up *civilians*, who they know to be civilians, and tosses them in prison camps where they are tortured, raped, and murdered.
And when the pictures and video came out, they scapegoated a pair of privates *but didn't actually stop any of the practices*. They court-martialed people FOR GETTING CAUGHT, not for murdering Iraqis.
you simply abandoned the argument.
If you're deep enough in denial to hold that the US Army does not routinely torture and kill civilians, and that it makes any attempts to avoid doing so, you're unbelievably ignorant. As in, you have to be either illiterate or completely avoiding all the facts, and then still trying to have a fact-less discussion.
And that's "Terror" -- a "War on Terra" would be a war against our planet.
The US Army does not routinely, as a matter of policy, deliberately kill civilians. And at no point did you produce any evidence that it does.
Does the name "Abu Ghraib" mean anything to you? How about "Guantanamo Bay"?
Abu Ghraib is a prison where, most significantly, Saddam Hussein murdered tens of thousands of people. Also, there was an incident where some US Army personnel, acting against orders, abused inmates, one or two of whom died.
Guantanamo Bay is a US base in Cuba, in which we have imprisoned thousands of illegal combatants. Most have been treated very well. A few have been abused.
Neither of these have anything to do with "killing civilians." Especially not as a matter of policy.
"Dead-checking" -- killing enemy wounded or those playing dead in a hot battle, is a fairly standard though regrettable practice of all armies in all wars. Note that the people being killed are not, in general, "civilians" -- they are enemy combatants. Are you arguing that enemy combatants, if they are not uniformed members of a recognized army, should be treated as neutral civilians?
Blackwater isn't the US Army. Nor is the British Army the US Army. Nor do either organization, as far as I know, have a policy of deliberately killing civilians. In the British Army, as far as I know, deliberately killing civilians is prosecutable as murder. I know it is in the US Army.
Steven Dale Green is being prosecuted on charges of first degree murder, and the prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. Hardly the way one would treat someone carrying out official Army policy!
Have you paid any attention to *any* of the news in the last five years? The US Army routinely rounds up *civilians*, who they know to be civilians, and tosses them in prison camps where they are tortured, raped, and murdered.
The US Army rounds up "civilians," whom they believe to be either actual enemy combatants or directly supporting the enemy (which, note, is the enemy of their own countries, as Afghanistan and Iraq are now on our side in the war, and puts them in prison camps where they are, for the most part, treated better than actual POW's are usually treated in wartime.
If you're deep enough in denial to hold that the US Army does not routinely torture and kill civilians, and that it makes any attempts to avoid doing so, you're unbelievably ignorant.
If the US Army does not make any attempt to avoid killing true civilians (by which I do not mean non-uniformed combatants), why don't we simply level cities and towns held by the enemy? We have enough firepower to do so, after all.
It's precisely because I'm not ignorant -- especially in military history -- that I am aware of the extent to which the US Army strives to avoid killing civilians. If you want to see what happens when an army does not avoid killing civilians, check out the Russian Front in World War II, on both the Soviet and Axis sides.
> If the US Army does not make any attempt to avoid killing true > civilians (by which I do not mean non-uniformed combatants)
...right.
I miss the days of the Geneva Convention, and the idea that civilians objecting to armies invading their countries and blowing up their homes (or even civilians supporting the people who do object to such a thing) was perhaps an understandable thing, and the concept that maybe one should not invent a new category that did not require dignity or humane treatement for people who exhibited this perfectly reasonable behaviour.
Was there another country that believed in something like that, once? Maybe thought that all its citizens should have the right to arm themselves, understood that it was facing invasion and knew that its citizens were going to fight back? I can't remember. Been so long.
> If the US Army does not make any attempt to avoid killing true > civilians (by which I do not mean non-uniformed combatants)
...right.
I miss the days of the Geneva Convention ...
The Geneva Convention classifies such non-uniformed combatants not fighting in a recognized army as "francs-tireurs," and allows them to be dealt with at the discretion of the occupiers. In other words, it doesn't say what you think it says.
... and the idea that civilians objecting to armies invading their countries and blowing up their homes (or even civilians supporting the people who do object to such a thing) was perhaps an understandable thing ...
Under those rules, no invasion of any other country, for any reason, could never succeed. This would not be a good thing, because it would mean that an aggressor could never be decisively defeated (to decisively defeat an aggressor usually requires a counter-invasion of his own country).
Also, at present Iraq is ruled by a democratically-elected government, which has made peace with America and asked our forces to remain to deal with the rebels. By what right can the rebels reasonably have a better claim to represent the Iraqi people than the government the Iraqi people chose in open election?
... and the concept that maybe one should not invent a new category that did not require dignity or humane treatement for people who exhibited this perfectly reasonable behaviour.
"Invent a new category?" The term "franc-tireur" dates back to at least the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, and the concept dates back at least to the "guerilleros" of the Peninsular War in 1808-12.
How about the concept that maybe one who is screamingly, hilariously ignorant of military history should not pontificate on the topic of customary military conduct?
Was there another country that believed in something like that, once? Maybe thought that all its citizens should have the right to arm themselves, understood that it was facing invasion and knew that its citizens were going to fight back? I can't remember. Been so long.
> The Geneva Convention classifies such non-uniformed combatants not fighting > in a recognized army as "francs-tireurs," and allows them to be dealt with at > the discretion of the occupiers. In other words, it doesn't say what you > think it says.
Awesome! I've just been through the four Geneva Conventions and the Protocols, and it's the damndest thing, but that term doesn't actually seem to show up in any of them! Enlighten me? Chapter and verse?
'cause, you know, last time someone told me that the Geneva Conventions had a special different category for arms-wielding civilian and I asked them to point me at it, they just gave me the reference to a definition of a civilian. Which, weirdly, covers the franc-tireurs as you describe them, makes it clear that they are civilians, and doesn't say *anything* about them being dealt with at the discretion of the occupiers. In fact, it appears to classify captured ones as prisoners of war, and the Geneva Conventions do have strict rules covering how you're supposed to treat those people, and certainly don't leave it to the discretion of the occupiers.
But hey, if you've got a more up-to-date version of the Conventions and documents, please, toss me a reference. I'd *love* to hear about this. I mean, since you're so sure about what the Conventions say.
How about it?
> Under those rules,
Upon re-reading, you will note that that was an observation of understandable behaviour, not a stated rule.
> "Invent a new category?"
Here again we see how important it is to read for context. Note that the statement was made in the context of the Geneva Conventions being the starting point of the yearned-for days, and was speaking of behaviour that both occurred after the creation of the Conventions and failed to live up to their standards.
Come on, I realize that it's a *little* harder than searching for the term "discretion" in that totally publically available text of the Conventions, but it's still a pretty basic skill.
> How about the concept that maybe one who is screamingly, hilariously > ignorant of military history should not pontificate on the topic of > customary military conduct?
Military history didn't come into it, and you have no basis to judge my familiarity with the topic.
How about the idea that one who wishes to be taken as anything more than a lying troll should not make explicitly and verifiably false statements about the contents of publically available documents, especially when they clearly have access and are capable of doing a little fact-checking before making said statements?
> That country was never ruled by a Saddam Hussein.
If it had been, it might at least have an excuse for allowing those principles to devolve into meaningless and empty rote.
With the Geneva Conventions, namely Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 francs-tireurs were entitled to prisoner of war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (*)
Your ignorance of military history is evident in that you are faulting America for failing to behave in battle in a way that no combatant has EVER behaved in battle. Of course, you are free to argue that America should simply behave better than any combatant has ever behaved in battle, but then you are no longer claiming that we are behaving badly, but simply failing to behave perfectly.
How, by the way, would it ever be possible to fight non-uniformed guerillas and win under your proposed rule?
=== (*) Under this rule, some of our prisoners would and some wouldn't be entitled to POW status.
Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: [...] (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (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; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
The term doesn't appear in the Conventions as you claimed it did, your statement that the Conventions allow franc-tireurs to be dealt with at the discretion of the occupiers is totally false, and the article you are citing specifically contradicts your own definition of franc-tireur and clearly does *not* apply to your argument about the Conventions' rules on non-uniformed combatants.
Furthermore--whether your lack of clarity is from foolish assumption, laziness, or not wanting to check and see where you're wrong--I *do* feel compelled to note that the Article whose summary you cited from Wikipedia[1] is not the only rule governing whether one qualifies for POW status, nor is that the only thing which determines how individuals must be treated.
In fact, for anyone who's reading this? jordan179 is *terrible* for factual inaccuracies. I'd check the premises of his statements if you're talking to him.
> Your ignorance of military history is evident in that you are faulting > America for failing to behave in battle in a way that no combatant has > EVER behaved in battle.
No, my disapproval of the way humans treat each other during war (quite distinct from in battle) is evident, as is the fact I made clear--after *you* brought the US Army into the discussion, might I note--that I find much of the current conduct of both the US Army and the country responsible for the actions of its soldiers to be reprehensible.
> How, by the way, would it ever by possible to fight non-uniformed > guerillas and win under your proposed rule?
*What* proposed rule? The only thing I proposed that could even be extrapolated to be anything *close* to a rule was that perhaps you shouldn't utter verifiable falsehoods about the contents of publically available documents to people who both have access to them and know that you have access to them!
Oh, yes, *that* absolutely interferes with fighting non-uniformed guerillas. "Well, Bob, you ready for today?" "I don't know, Syd. If I can't lie to them damn guerillas about that front-page news story, I just don't know if I can shoot them." --- [1] The Article you summarized from Wikipedia. The Article that's available online with a seven-second Google, that you can't possibly reasonably not know how to find, that's available in all its clear and straightforward glory, and that you are completely ignoring so that you can talk about a summary on Wikipedia that contradicts you anyway.
God, I must be bored to be giving you the time of day, much less this much time. You *are* trolling, aren't you? It's the only thing that makes sense. Either that or this is an attempt at a performance piece designed to remind people of the folly of not checking utterly available primary sources.
Right.
Life is short. Life can be good. Your attempts to argue based on desperate misreadings of epic proportions and opinions spouted from your carefully maintained uninformed ignorance are neither.
You want to articulate informed opinions? Great. You want to shut up? Fine. You want to string words together regardless of factuality? Well, at least it keeps your hands busy.
But I can't see the slightest reason to spend further time or effort on the kind of dreck the uninformed, ill-read, ill-reading individual you present yourself as is spewing.
Besides this idiocy of relying on wikipedia summaries, read the actual convention on treatment of POWs again.
Notice how torture, rape, and murder are prohibited to all non-combatants, and that "non-combatant" explicitly includes A) Members of the armed forces who lay down their weapons and B) All combatants who have been removed from combat capability by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.
*then* it goes on to talk about the rights of the prisoners of war, which are specifically different from the minimum standard you must accord to all persons, regardless of their status as a POW.
And, of course, you could also look at th "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment", to which the USA is a signatory, which makes it a US law with force equivalent to the US Constitution itself.
And, of course, you're clearly and without dispute violating that one.
So: You're not very well educated on the facts.
You demand that other people do all your research for you so that you can sit back and say "oh no, didn't happen, didn't happen, didn't happen LALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" when a trivial examination of the facts would show that you're dead wrong.
And, of course, you blatantly lie about every fact that comes into your reach, thinking that people won't notice and won't bother to contradict you by googling for five seconds.
You insist that the US needs to be given a free pass on all the crimes it's soldiers commit because they're simply Not As Bad As some other people you can think of, and that they should continue to get this free pass as long as you can think of someone else they're Not As Bad As.
I'm afraid, son, you're simply not smart enough and entirely too deliberately dishonest to have this conversation with. Come back when you grow up and actually have a grasp on *facts*, where you don't have to have us debunk your delusions in depth at every step of the way AND then have you simply make more unsupported claims and demand we debunk them.
All right, how many US Army personnel are you claiming at Abu Ghraib participated in the abuse, how many prisoners are you claiming died, and on what basis are you arguing that the abuse was in pursuit of their orders?
Guantanamo Bay is a US base in Cuba, in which we have imprisoned thousands of illegal combatants.
Where is the proof that they're illegal combatants? Oh wait, habeas corpus doesn't apply to them anymore, so we'll never know.
"Dead-checking" -- killing enemy wounded or those playing dead in a hot battle, is a fairly standard though regrettable practice of all armies in all wars. Note that the people being killed are not, in general, "civilians" -- they are enemy combatants. Are you arguing that enemy combatants, if they are not uniformed members of a recognized army, should be treated as neutral civilians?
I'd say something here about the Geneva Conventions and POWs, but we've decided those don't apply, either. Imagine if China invaded the US, captured our president, executed him/her in a kangaroo trial, and declared martial law. Would you be OK with the Chinese government capturing and torturing every nut with a gun (think Idaho, Montana, and Texas, here) who wants to fight back against an invading force? A bunch of them have camo, but they're not part of the standing army. Second amendment, baby.
Blackwater isn't the US Army.
They are paid by, act under the orders of, and are the responsibility of the US government.
If the US Army does not make any attempt to avoid killing true civilians (by which I do not mean non-uniformed combatants), why don't we simply level cities and towns held by the enemy? We have enough firepower to do so, after all.
You mean like Fallujah in 2004? White phosphorus is also against the Geneva Conventions when used in civilian areas, but as above, we've decided we don't need to play by those rules. I'm sure we'll be first in line to demonize the next party to break them against us, though.
Guantanamo Bay is a US base in Cuba, in which we have imprisoned thousands of illegal combatants.
Where is the proof that they're illegal combatants? Oh wait, habeas corpus doesn't apply to them anymore, so we'll never know.
"Anymore?"
Sorry, exactly when did habeus corpus apply to prisoners taken in battle? If you can't remember the year, at least name the war.
I'll be waiting.
"Dead-checking" -- killing enemy wounded or those playing dead in a hot battle, is a fairly standard though regrettable practice of all armies in all wars. Note that the people being killed are not, in general, "civilians" -- they are enemy combatants. Are you arguing that enemy combatants, if they are not uniformed members of a recognized army, should be treated as neutral civilians?
I'd say something here about the Geneva Conventions and POWs, but we've decided those don't apply, either.
Do you know the normal fate of soldiers defending a position which is taken by storm?
Can you name an army which has not behaved this way under such circumstances?
Your criticism of the US Army here would apply to every other army throughout history.
Imagine if China invaded the US, captured our president, executed him/her in a kangaroo trial, and declared martial law.
You mean if America was first under the rule of a murderous dictator, got into the war by attacking China's ally, losing that first war, then refusing to honor the truce? And the Chinese then invaded, overthrew the tyrant, and restored democracy?
Sorry, exactly when did habeus corpus apply to prisoners taken in battle? If you can't remember the year, at least name the war.
1929, Third Geneva Convention, or 1949, Fourth Geneva convention. Prisoners of war are not allowed to be spirited away and locked up until they die.
So: sorry, exactly when did habeas corpus not apply to prisoners taken in battle? If you can't remember the year, at least name the war.
I'll be waiting.
Do you know the normal fate of soldiers defending a position which is taken by storm?
Yes. Those who have been wounded are non-combatants and are to be taken as prisoners of war and given medical attention. As stipulated in the Geneva Conventions. As you should know, given your repeated professions of your immense and all-encompassing military knowledge.
I should also note that the enemy has more incentive to surrender when they know they'll be given civil treatment instead of being thrown in a run-down gulag.
Can you name an army which has not behaved this way under such circumstances? Your criticism of the US Army here would apply to every other army throughout history.
Just because other armies did it doesn't mean it's right. War is bad enough when it's necessary, we don't need to make it worse with shitty, stupid, and useless tactics. Did your mom let you get away with slugging your siblings when they were pestering you, even after you cried "they were poking me first!"
We're supposed to be the good guys, and the good guys are supposed to do it the right way. Other armies dead check, too; other armies have secret prisons, too; other armies utilize torture. That doesn't give us carte blanche to do it too.
I'd cheer them on.
So why aren't you cheering on the partisans in Iraq? Oh wait, what about the insurgents? Do you believe, in my hypothetical invasion above, that China would be covered in gunning down 'insurgents' from Canada or Mexico? And, technically, aren't we insurgents in Iraq? Pick a coherent stand on your issues, please, not one that changes with the situation.
I'm willing to listen to what you actually mean if I've misunderstood something or if we just have different viewpoints. It's kinda hard to actually change anyone's mind if you don't acknowledge that they have one.
I'm willing to listen to what you actually mean if I've misunderstood something or if we just have different viewpoints
All religions are not in fact equal in terms of their doctrine, or the behaviors they impose upon their adherence, even though under law we must treat them as equal. Some are more tolerant or intolerant, some more peaceful or militant. Islam, especially the Wahabbist variety (which is the one, thanks to our wonderful friends the Saudis, which is largely being preached abroad) is highly militant and intolerant, compared to Christianity, especially the varieties currently popular in the West.
Pretending that this is not so, as Bush and many others have done, doesn't solve the problem that it is so.
Thanks for expanding. I don't think it's a good idea for me to start a political discussion in someone else's LJ (and I have things to do today and don't have the time to get involved in an online political/religious/historical debate), so I think I shall just leave it at, you and I have different viewpoints on this subject.
You didn't misunderstand. He's a xenophobic bigot who's swallowed the whole "OMG the BROWN PEOPLE with their MOON GOD are out to KILL US ALL" bullshit whole.
I was practicing being diplomatic. :-) It sort of interests me to see how other people think, even if I completely disagree--which I do. Because I have to stand on the other side of the coin as well...I can't change anyone else's viewpoint if I automatically assume that they're idiots if I disagree with them.
Not that I'm going to try to discuss this subject, here--for one thing, it's your LJ and I don't want to get into politics and history lessons on it--and I also don't think it'll be productive for anyone involved. This is something that this person and I are just not going to see eye-to-eye on and it would take too much energy to get into a debate about it.
And I have New Years-y things to go off and do, too.
Happy upcoming 2008. Thanks for your posts throughout the year. I hope 2008 is good to you.
Thank you. There is a Buddhist principle that says, basically, "I bow to the divinity in you." I walk around life putting my foot in my mouth, but I try to honor the idea that there is a divinity in everyone worth honoring, even if I'm having trouble perceiving it at that moment. I mean, even President Bush must be genuinely loved by somebody, though it sure ain't me.
Lots of the time, of course, I'm incapable of being that philosophical and merely act like a dork.
Yes, it's Reepicheep. :-) I don't remember where I got it--someplace public. So go ahead; I don't own it, although I think I probably got permission for it way back years ago when I acquired it.
He's a xenophobic bigot who's swallowed the whole "OMG the BROWN PEOPLE with their MOON GOD are out to KILL US ALL" bullshit whole.
I am?
Wow, nice for you to explain my ideas for me. Here I thought I was simply worried about Islam's aggressive intolerance. I don't really care whether Allah counts as a "moon god" -- more logically, he's an extreme manifestation of universalist monotheism.
I also said nothing about "brown people" -- I neither favor nor disfavor people based on their racial origin. In fact, I think that a lot of people who favor a pullout do so, in part, because they don't really care what happens to foreign nonwhites.
As witness the lack of liberal concern for the fate of the millions of Southeast Asians murdered by the Communists after we pulled out from Vietnam. I fear that this particular history is about to repeat itself in Southwest Asia, if the Democrats get their way.
Broad generalizations about religion, as if everyone who believed in one all behaved the same way, or at least enough so that the statement "I don’t subscribe to the principle that there are good X and bad X. They’re all X" passes unchallenged when X is a religion that happens to cover about a fifth of the population of the planet.
Hmh. Let me know if in addition to grasping the differences between different religions, they're any good at grasping the differences between members of the same religion?
The first three sentences, they had me curious. Not really optimistic[1], but willing to listen to what was potentially an attempt to address the degree to which ignorance is part of the current problem.
Then it all falls apart. --- [1] "[t]his Muslim thing"? From a spokesman? As in, from a person hired to clearly and effectively communicate from someone else
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 01:59 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 01:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 02:25 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 04:07 am (UTC)The stupid, it hurts.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 01:58 pm (UTC)Concurred.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 04:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 01:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 02:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 04:25 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 01:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 02:02 pm (UTC)Islam has a more violent approach to the problem of conversion and the treatment of "infidels" in its founding scripture, the Koran, than Christianity does in the New Testament. Muslims who behave tolerantly are not really following their faith, a fact which those preaching violence use to their advantage.
Too bad the advisor got fired for telling the truth, but that's common in politics.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 02:59 pm (UTC)There's equal support for militant, violent Christianity as there is for militant, violent Islam. As well, the vast majority of Muslims, like the vast majority of Christians, are not violent people who follow a militant religion. As such, your lovely bigoted strawman needs work, unless you're going to demonise Christianity in the same way as you've described Islam.
I seem to recall you had this problem before, where your definition of "terrorist" included the standard practices of the US Army, and you'd defined the overthrow of the US government as a critical goal in the War On Terra.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 03:04 pm (UTC)No, it didn't. The US Army does not routinely, as a matter of policy, deliberately kill civilians. And at no point did you produce any evidence that it does, you simply abandoned the argument.
... and you'd defined the overthrow of the US government as a critical goal in the War On Terra.
Only in the alternate reality in which the US Army routinely, as a matter of policy, deliberately kills civilians. And that's "Terror" -- a "War on Terra" would be a war against our planet.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 03:18 pm (UTC)Does the name "Abu Ghraib" mean anything to you?
How about "Guantanamo Bay"?
How about the phrase "dead-checking"?
How about any of the incidents involving Blackwater, in Iraq and in *New Orleans*?
Did you see any of the videos that the British troops made of themselves firing at random civilian vehicles?
How about the name "Steven Green", and in particular what it took to get that particular crime investigated with the obstructions the Army put in the way?
Have you paid any attention to *any* of the news in the last five years? The US Army routinely rounds up *civilians*, who they know to be civilians, and tosses them in prison camps where they are tortured, raped, and murdered.
And when the pictures and video came out, they scapegoated a pair of privates *but didn't actually stop any of the practices*. They court-martialed people FOR GETTING CAUGHT, not for murdering Iraqis.
you simply abandoned the argument.
If you're deep enough in denial to hold that the US Army does not routinely torture and kill civilians, and that it makes any attempts to avoid doing so, you're unbelievably ignorant. As in, you have to be either illiterate or completely avoiding all the facts, and then still trying to have a fact-less discussion.
And that's "Terror" -- a "War on Terra" would be a war against our planet.
I spells 'em how Bush says (and acts) 'em.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 03:52 pm (UTC)Does the name "Abu Ghraib" mean anything to you?
How about "Guantanamo Bay"?
Abu Ghraib is a prison where, most significantly, Saddam Hussein murdered tens of thousands of people. Also, there was an incident where some US Army personnel, acting against orders, abused inmates, one or two of whom died.
Guantanamo Bay is a US base in Cuba, in which we have imprisoned thousands of illegal combatants. Most have been treated very well. A few have been abused.
Neither of these have anything to do with "killing civilians." Especially not as a matter of policy.
"Dead-checking" -- killing enemy wounded or those playing dead in a hot battle, is a fairly standard though regrettable practice of all armies in all wars. Note that the people being killed are not, in general, "civilians" -- they are enemy combatants. Are you arguing that enemy combatants, if they are not uniformed members of a recognized army, should be treated as neutral civilians?
Blackwater isn't the US Army. Nor is the British Army the US Army. Nor do either organization, as far as I know, have a policy of deliberately killing civilians. In the British Army, as far as I know, deliberately killing civilians is prosecutable as murder. I know it is in the US Army.
Steven Dale Green is being prosecuted on charges of first degree murder, and the prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. Hardly the way one would treat someone carrying out official Army policy!
Have you paid any attention to *any* of the news in the last five years? The US Army routinely rounds up *civilians*, who they know to be civilians, and tosses them in prison camps where they are tortured, raped, and murdered.
The US Army rounds up "civilians," whom they believe to be either actual enemy combatants or directly supporting the enemy (which, note, is the enemy of their own countries, as Afghanistan and Iraq are now on our side in the war, and puts them in prison camps where they are, for the most part, treated better than actual POW's are usually treated in wartime.
If you're deep enough in denial to hold that the US Army does not routinely torture and kill civilians, and that it makes any attempts to avoid doing so, you're unbelievably ignorant.
If the US Army does not make any attempt to avoid killing true civilians (by which I do not mean non-uniformed combatants), why don't we simply level cities and towns held by the enemy? We have enough firepower to do so, after all.
It's precisely because I'm not ignorant -- especially in military history -- that I am aware of the extent to which the US Army strives to avoid killing civilians. If you want to see what happens when an army does not avoid killing civilians, check out the Russian Front in World War II, on both the Soviet and Axis sides.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 04:07 pm (UTC)> civilians (by which I do not mean non-uniformed combatants)
...right.
I miss the days of the Geneva Convention, and the idea that civilians objecting to armies invading their countries and blowing up their homes (or even civilians supporting the people who do object to such a thing) was perhaps an understandable thing, and the concept that maybe one should not invent a new category that did not require dignity or humane treatement for people who exhibited this perfectly reasonable behaviour.
Was there another country that believed in something like that, once? Maybe thought that all its citizens should have the right to arm themselves, understood that it was facing invasion and knew that its citizens were going to fight back? I can't remember. Been so long.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-01 12:17 am (UTC)> civilians (by which I do not mean non-uniformed combatants)
...right.
I miss the days of the Geneva Convention ...
The Geneva Convention classifies such non-uniformed combatants not fighting in a recognized army as "francs-tireurs," and allows them to be dealt with at the discretion of the occupiers. In other words, it doesn't say what you think it says.
... and the idea that civilians objecting to armies invading their countries and blowing up their homes (or even civilians supporting the people who do object to such a thing) was perhaps an understandable thing ...
Under those rules, no invasion of any other country, for any reason, could never succeed. This would not be a good thing, because it would mean that an aggressor could never be decisively defeated (to decisively defeat an aggressor usually requires a counter-invasion of his own country).
Also, at present Iraq is ruled by a democratically-elected government, which has made peace with America and asked our forces to remain to deal with the rebels. By what right can the rebels reasonably have a better claim to represent the Iraqi people than the government the Iraqi people chose in open election?
... and the concept that maybe one should not invent a new category that did not require dignity or humane treatement for people who exhibited this perfectly reasonable behaviour.
"Invent a new category?" The term "franc-tireur" dates back to at least the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, and the concept dates back at least to the "guerilleros" of the Peninsular War in 1808-12.
How about the concept that maybe one who is screamingly, hilariously ignorant of military history should not pontificate on the topic of customary military conduct?
Was there another country that believed in something like that, once? Maybe thought that all its citizens should have the right to arm themselves, understood that it was facing invasion and knew that its citizens were going to fight back? I can't remember. Been so long.
That country was never ruled by a Saddam Hussein.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-01 07:10 am (UTC)> in a recognized army as "francs-tireurs," and allows them to be dealt with at
> the discretion of the occupiers. In other words, it doesn't say what you
> think it says.
Awesome! I've just been through the four Geneva Conventions and the Protocols, and it's the damndest thing, but that term doesn't actually seem to show up in any of them! Enlighten me? Chapter and verse?
'cause, you know, last time someone told me that the Geneva Conventions had a special different category for arms-wielding civilian and I asked them to point me at it, they just gave me the reference to a definition of a civilian. Which, weirdly, covers the franc-tireurs as you describe them, makes it clear that they are civilians, and doesn't say *anything* about them being dealt with at the discretion of the occupiers. In fact, it appears to classify captured ones as prisoners of war, and the Geneva Conventions do have strict rules covering how you're supposed to treat those people, and certainly don't leave it to the discretion of the occupiers.
But hey, if you've got a more up-to-date version of the Conventions and documents, please, toss me a reference. I'd *love* to hear about this. I mean, since you're so sure about what the Conventions say.
How about it?
> Under those rules,
Upon re-reading, you will note that that was an observation of understandable behaviour, not a stated rule.
> "Invent a new category?"
Here again we see how important it is to read for context. Note that the statement was made in the context of the Geneva Conventions being the starting point of the yearned-for days, and was speaking of behaviour that both occurred after the creation of the Conventions and failed to live up to their standards.
Come on, I realize that it's a *little* harder than searching for the term "discretion" in that totally publically available text of the Conventions, but it's still a pretty basic skill.
> How about the concept that maybe one who is screamingly, hilariously
> ignorant of military history should not pontificate on the topic of
> customary military conduct?
Military history didn't come into it, and you have no basis to judge my familiarity with the topic.
How about the idea that one who wishes to be taken as anything more than a lying troll should not make explicitly and verifiably false statements about the contents of publically available documents, especially when they clearly have access and are capable of doing a little fact-checking before making said statements?
> That country was never ruled by a Saddam Hussein.
If it had been, it might at least have an excuse for allowing those principles to devolve into meaningless and empty rote.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-01 07:42 am (UTC)With the Geneva Conventions, namely Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 francs-tireurs were entitled to prisoner of war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (*)
Your ignorance of military history is evident in that you are faulting America for failing to behave in battle in a way that no combatant has EVER behaved in battle. Of course, you are free to argue that America should simply behave better than any combatant has ever behaved in battle, but then you are no longer claiming that we are behaving badly, but simply failing to behave perfectly.
How, by the way, would it ever be possible to fight non-uniformed guerillas and win under your proposed rule?
===
(*) Under this rule, some of our prisoners would and some wouldn't be entitled to POW status.
*plonk*
Date: 2008-01-01 08:28 am (UTC)Furthermore--whether your lack of clarity is from foolish assumption, laziness, or not wanting to check and see where you're wrong--I *do* feel compelled to note that the Article whose summary you cited from Wikipedia[1] is not the only rule governing whether one qualifies for POW status, nor is that the only thing which determines how individuals must be treated.
In fact, for anyone who's reading this?
> Your ignorance of military history is evident in that you are faulting
> America for failing to behave in battle in a way that no combatant has
> EVER behaved in battle.
No, my disapproval of the way humans treat each other during war (quite distinct from in battle) is evident, as is the fact I made clear--after *you* brought the US Army into the discussion, might I note--that I find much of the current conduct of both the US Army and the country responsible for the actions of its soldiers to be reprehensible.
> How, by the way, would it ever by possible to fight non-uniformed
> guerillas and win under your proposed rule?
*What* proposed rule? The only thing I proposed that could even be extrapolated to be anything *close* to a rule was that perhaps you shouldn't utter verifiable falsehoods about the contents of publically available documents to people who both have access to them and know that you have access to them!
Oh, yes, *that* absolutely interferes with fighting non-uniformed guerillas. "Well, Bob, you ready for today?" "I don't know, Syd. If I can't lie to them damn guerillas about that front-page news story, I just don't know if I can shoot them."
---
[1] The Article you summarized from Wikipedia. The Article that's available online with a seven-second Google, that you can't possibly reasonably not know how to find, that's available in all its clear and straightforward glory, and that you are completely ignoring so that you can talk about a summary on Wikipedia that contradicts you anyway.
God, I must be bored to be giving you the time of day, much less this much time. You *are* trolling, aren't you? It's the only thing that makes sense. Either that or this is an attempt at a performance piece designed to remind people of the folly of not checking utterly available primary sources.
Right.
Life is short. Life can be good. Your attempts to argue based on desperate misreadings of epic proportions and opinions spouted from your carefully maintained uninformed ignorance are neither.
You want to articulate informed opinions? Great. You want to shut up? Fine. You want to string words together regardless of factuality? Well, at least it keeps your hands busy.
But I can't see the slightest reason to spend further time or effort on the kind of dreck the uninformed, ill-read, ill-reading individual you present yourself as is spewing.
Have a nice night, a nice year, and a nice life.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-01 04:52 pm (UTC)Notice how torture, rape, and murder are prohibited to all non-combatants, and that "non-combatant" explicitly includes
A) Members of the armed forces who lay down their weapons
and
B) All combatants who have been removed from combat capability by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.
*then* it goes on to talk about the rights of the prisoners of war, which are specifically different from the minimum standard you must accord to all persons, regardless of their status as a POW.
And, of course, you could also look at th "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment", to which the USA is a signatory, which makes it a US law with force equivalent to the US Constitution itself.
And, of course, you're clearly and without dispute violating that one.
So:
You're not very well educated on the facts.
You demand that other people do all your research for you so that you can sit back and say "oh no, didn't happen, didn't happen, didn't happen LALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" when a trivial examination of the facts would show that you're dead wrong.
And, of course, you blatantly lie about every fact that comes into your reach, thinking that people won't notice and won't bother to contradict you by googling for five seconds.
You insist that the US needs to be given a free pass on all the crimes it's soldiers commit because they're simply Not As Bad As some other people you can think of, and that they should continue to get this free pass as long as you can think of someone else they're Not As Bad As.
I'm afraid, son, you're simply not smart enough and entirely too deliberately dishonest to have this conversation with. Come back when you grow up and actually have a grasp on *facts*, where you don't have to have us debunk your delusions in depth at every step of the way AND then have you simply make more unsupported claims and demand we debunk them.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 04:20 pm (UTC)"Some"?
"Against orders"?
"One or two"?
You are phenomenally ignorant of the facts of the matter.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-01 12:19 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 11:58 pm (UTC)Where is the proof that they're illegal combatants? Oh wait, habeas corpus doesn't apply to them anymore, so we'll never know.
"Dead-checking" -- killing enemy wounded or those playing dead in a hot battle, is a fairly standard though regrettable practice of all armies in all wars. Note that the people being killed are not, in general, "civilians" -- they are enemy combatants. Are you arguing that enemy combatants, if they are not uniformed members of a recognized army, should be treated as neutral civilians?
I'd say something here about the Geneva Conventions and POWs, but we've decided those don't apply, either. Imagine if China invaded the US, captured our president, executed him/her in a kangaroo trial, and declared martial law. Would you be OK with the Chinese government capturing and torturing every nut with a gun (think Idaho, Montana, and Texas, here) who wants to fight back against an invading force? A bunch of them have camo, but they're not part of the standing army. Second amendment, baby.
Blackwater isn't the US Army.
They are paid by, act under the orders of, and are the responsibility of the US government.
If the US Army does not make any attempt to avoid killing true civilians (by which I do not mean non-uniformed combatants), why don't we simply level cities and towns held by the enemy? We have enough firepower to do so, after all.
You mean like Fallujah in 2004? White phosphorus is also against the Geneva Conventions when used in civilian areas, but as above, we've decided we don't need to play by those rules. I'm sure we'll be first in line to demonize the next party to break them against us, though.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-01 12:24 am (UTC)Where is the proof that they're illegal combatants? Oh wait, habeas corpus doesn't apply to them anymore, so we'll never know.
"Anymore?"
Sorry, exactly when did habeus corpus apply to prisoners taken in battle? If you can't remember the year, at least name the war.
I'll be waiting.
"Dead-checking" -- killing enemy wounded or those playing dead in a hot battle, is a fairly standard though regrettable practice of all armies in all wars. Note that the people being killed are not, in general, "civilians" -- they are enemy combatants. Are you arguing that enemy combatants, if they are not uniformed members of a recognized army, should be treated as neutral civilians?
I'd say something here about the Geneva Conventions and POWs, but we've decided those don't apply, either.
Do you know the normal fate of soldiers defending a position which is taken by storm?
Can you name an army which has not behaved this way under such circumstances?
Your criticism of the US Army here would apply to every other army throughout history.
Imagine if China invaded the US, captured our president, executed him/her in a kangaroo trial, and declared martial law.
You mean if America was first under the rule of a murderous dictator, got into the war by attacking China's ally, losing that first war, then refusing to honor the truce? And the Chinese then invaded, overthrew the tyrant, and restored democracy?
I'd cheer them on.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-01 07:12 pm (UTC)Most of those imprisoned weren't "taken in battle", they were merely arrested on suspicion and imprisoned without trial.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-02 05:25 am (UTC)1929, Third Geneva Convention, or 1949, Fourth Geneva convention. Prisoners of war are not allowed to be spirited away and locked up until they die.
So: sorry, exactly when did habeas corpus not apply to prisoners taken in battle? If you can't remember the year, at least name the war.
I'll be waiting.
Do you know the normal fate of soldiers defending a position which is taken by storm?
Yes. Those who have been wounded are non-combatants and are to be taken as prisoners of war and given medical attention. As stipulated in the Geneva Conventions. As you should know, given your repeated professions of your immense and all-encompassing military knowledge.
I should also note that the enemy has more incentive to surrender when they know they'll be given civil treatment instead of being thrown in a run-down gulag.
Can you name an army which has not behaved this way under such circumstances? Your criticism of the US Army here would apply to every other army throughout history.
Just because other armies did it doesn't mean it's right. War is bad enough when it's necessary, we don't need to make it worse with shitty, stupid, and useless tactics. Did your mom let you get away with slugging your siblings when they were pestering you, even after you cried "they were poking me first!"
We're supposed to be the good guys, and the good guys are supposed to do it the right way. Other armies dead check, too; other armies have secret prisons, too; other armies utilize torture. That doesn't give us carte blanche to do it too.
I'd cheer them on.
So why aren't you cheering on the partisans in Iraq? Oh wait, what about the insurgents? Do you believe, in my hypothetical invasion above, that China would be covered in gunning down 'insurgents' from Canada or Mexico? And, technically, aren't we insurgents in Iraq? Pick a coherent stand on your issues, please, not one that changes with the situation.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 05:06 am (UTC)Not. Not. Not.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 02:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 02:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 03:02 pm (UTC)All religions are not in fact equal in terms of their doctrine, or the behaviors they impose upon their adherence, even though under law we must treat them as equal. Some are more tolerant or intolerant, some more peaceful or militant. Islam, especially the Wahabbist variety (which is the one, thanks to our wonderful friends the Saudis, which is largely being preached abroad) is highly militant and intolerant, compared to Christianity, especially the varieties currently popular in the West.
Pretending that this is not so, as Bush and many others have done, doesn't solve the problem that it is so.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 10:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 03:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 10:19 pm (UTC)Not that I'm going to try to discuss this subject, here--for one thing, it's your LJ and I don't want to get into politics and history lessons on it--and I also don't think it'll be productive for anyone involved. This is something that this person and I are just not going to see eye-to-eye on and it would take too much energy to get into a debate about it.
And I have New Years-y things to go off and do, too.
Happy upcoming 2008. Thanks for your posts throughout the year. I hope 2008 is good to you.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-01 07:12 am (UTC)FWIW, I think you did wonderfully.
I am tired. Good 2008 to you. May I gank your Reepicheep icon? (It is Reepicheep, right?)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-01 12:11 pm (UTC)Lots of the time, of course, I'm incapable of being that philosophical and merely act like a dork.
Yes, it's Reepicheep. :-) I don't remember where I got it--someplace public. So go ahead; I don't own it, although I think I probably got permission for it way back years ago when I acquired it.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-01 07:46 am (UTC)I am?
Wow, nice for you to explain my ideas for me. Here I thought I was simply worried about Islam's aggressive intolerance. I don't really care whether Allah counts as a "moon god" -- more logically, he's an extreme manifestation of universalist monotheism.
I also said nothing about "brown people" -- I neither favor nor disfavor people based on their racial origin. In fact, I think that a lot of people who favor a pullout do so, in part, because they don't really care what happens to foreign nonwhites.
As witness the lack of liberal concern for the fate of the millions of Southeast Asians murdered by the Communists after we pulled out from Vietnam. I fear that this particular history is about to repeat itself in Southwest Asia, if the Democrats get their way.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 04:11 pm (UTC)Broad generalizations about religion, as if everyone who believed in one all behaved the same way, or at least enough so that the statement "I don’t subscribe to the principle that there are good X and bad X. They’re all X" passes unchallenged when X is a religion that happens to cover about a fifth of the population of the planet.
Hmh. Let me know if in addition to grasping the differences between different religions, they're any good at grasping the differences between members of the same religion?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-31 01:57 pm (UTC)Then it all falls apart.
---
[1] "[t]his Muslim thing"? From a spokesman? As in, from a person hired to clearly and effectively communicate from someone else
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-02 12:28 pm (UTC)Believe it or not, Scalia is a fucking nut.