Never happen here .. this is NZ

[SARGE]

Comparisons between Nazi Germany and Al Qaeda are not really valid. The Nazis being fought in WWII represented a nation state. Al Qaeda does not. The majority of German forces (spies excluded) wore a uniform. Al Qaeda does not (head rag and AK47 notwithstanding). Nazi Germany followed, for the most part, the Geneva Conventions. With relatively few exceptions, they treated POWs reasonably well. Al Qaeda has no respect for the customs and traditions of war, let alone international protocol. Nazi Germany had a well-defined command structure. Al Qaeda does not (one bloke at the top does not constitute a command structure).

The Americans are right to declare such people 'enemy combatants' and withhold from them the priviliges of the Geneva Conventions, if only to ensure that these people knew they would be given the same treatment by allied forces as captured allied soldiers would be by theirs. A state of 'war', which the Geneva Convention governs does not necessarily have to exist between nation states. However, as only nation states are signatories to the Geneva Conventions, it goes without saying that Al Qaeda are not. The Geneva Conventions (at least the third, which covers treatment of POWs) only apply in a conflict between two or more signatories. Therefore, the Geneva Conventions do not apply.

exactly .. see post 85 above.

i think we should sharpen the machetes and charge up the video cameras at Gitmo.. pop it all on YouTube,,

long as i know the rules i can play the game..

[JimBob]

The “war on terror” is the latest load of bollocks/bogey man to scare the daylights out of everyone.
Its nothing new, terrorism has existed since year dot.
Too much credit is being given to Al Queda as if they have the worldwide rights to Terrorism.
These idiots in Britain, build three “car bombs” and cant get them to go off?
Straight away its Al Queda because whatever.
They are a bunch of gullible fools geed up by more fools who think they are bigshots in KAOS.
If Al Queda or any other half decent outfit wanted to do this they would get someone who knew what they were doing to oversee these idiots or contract the job out.
But its always Al Queda this and Al Queda that.
I see they have infiltrated Bream Bay. The police have foiled a terror plot involving 4 Al Quedas masquerading as NZ college students. And they were using the evil of all evils THE INTERNET. The SAS, SIS, ANZ, STG, ASB, and the IRD all mounted ops to counter this evil. They will nail them for burglary, and being idiots, but if talking shit on the internet is a problem then half of NZ will be locked up.
Back in the 70’s the British Govt approached the US Govt and asked if more could be done to stop the flow of money and munitions from the US to the IRA.
The answer, couched in diplomatic legalese was No. The IRA while crude were viewed as freedom fighters. The only concession the British got was the IRA fundraisers would be called something else, the Catholic Childrens Food Fund or something. But they still carried on.
Many in the IRA despised the Irish Americans for their privileged backgrounds (compared to the Irish), the fact they were “over there” instead of being in Ireland and their gullibility. The IRA ambassadors laid it on by the bucketful, freedom from the oppressor, the struggle, we are brothers in this together, remember your blood! Etc etc etc.
The point with terrorism is it all depends who is the giver and who is the receiver

[Hitcher]

Nazi Germany followed, for the most part, the Geneva Conventions. With relatively few exceptions, they treated POWs reasonably well.

Apart, that is, for Russian POWs. Many hundreds of thousands of them. They did not receive Red Cross parcels or any of the other concessions made to POWs from other allied forces and were treated no better than the Nazis treated other "under classes". "Relatively few exceptions"?

[Sanx]

Apart, that is, for Russian POWs. Many hundreds of thousands of them. They did not receive Red Cross parcels or any of the other concessions made to POWs from other allied forces and were treated no better than the Nazis treated other "under classes". "Relatively few exceptions"?

And the reason for that? Simple: Russia didn't afford the same privilige to German POWs.

[Sanx]

Back in the 70’s the British Govt approached the US Govt and asked if more could be done to stop the flow of money and munitions from the US to the IRA.
The answer, couched in diplomatic legalese was No. The IRA while crude were viewed as freedom fighters. The only concession the British got was the IRA fundraisers would be called something else, the Catholic Childrens Food Fund or something. But they still carried on.
Many in the IRA despised the Irish Americans for their privileged backgrounds (compared to the Irish), the fact they were “over there” instead of being in Ireland and their gullibility. The IRA ambassadors laid it on by the bucketful, freedom from the oppressor, the struggle, we are brothers in this together, remember your blood! Etc etc etc.

Something that still pisses Brits off today. Successive US presidents took a strong political (i.e. for show only) stand against terrorism, but never touched one of the largest terrorist fund-raising efforts in the world; the one going on in their own back yard. Bush, shortly after 9/11 made a speech saying that (I can't remember the exact words) "Those who support terrorists are our enemies. Those that supply terrorists aer our enemies. Those that finance terrorists are our enemies. Those that provide shelter to terrorists are our enemies". I'm still waiting for the US Army to invade Boston and Chicago and take out the tens of thousands of supporters, suppliers and financiers of terrorism who live, work and drink in their plastic paddy pubs there.

One interesting by-product of 9/11 was the decrease in activity by the IRA and other terrorist groups in Europe. Although a cease-fire existed in NI, it was only the added pressure caused by 9/11 that finally convinced the IRA mullahs that their actions were never going to be viewed in the same light by their main funding source; the USA. That convinced the IRA to finally acquiesce to British demands that their weapons caches were permanently and verifiably destroyed.

[Dave Lobster]

That convinced the IRA to finally acquiesce to British demands that their weapons caches were permanently and verifiably destroyed.

Yeah, that's happened.

[Hitcher]

And the reason for that? Simple: Russia didn't afford the same privilige to German POWs.

I don't think that the Geneva Convention allows for "tit for tat" retribution.

[SARGE]

I don't think that the Geneva Convention allows for "tit for tat" retribution.

actually says nothing about it either way.. for that you have to look at the LOAC ( laws of Armed Conflict)

Conduct of warfare
Among other issues, the laws of war address declaration of war, acceptance of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of war; military necessity along with distinction, and proportionality; and the prohibition of certain inhumane weapons which cause unnecessary suffering.
It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform is allowed, though fighting in that uniform, like fighting under a white flag, is perfidy which is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages.

heres a good one ..

Violations and applicability
Parties are bound by the laws of war to the extent that such compliance does not interfere with achieving legitimate military goals. For example, they are obliged to make every effort to avoid damaging people and property not involved in combat, but they are not guilty of a war crime if a bomb mistakenly hits a residential area.
By the same token, combatants that use protected people or property as shields or camouflage are guilty of violations of laws of war and are responsible for damage to those that should be protected.

[Swoop]

Apart, that is, for Russian POWs. ... and were treated no better than the Nazis treated other "under classes".

Mauthausen Concentration Camp had a really pleasant "indoor-outdoor flow" in the Soviet compound. When I visited, we were shown the compound for the Soviets. No roof, just a concrete slab and concrete walls all open to the elements.
Even the Jews had barracks of some sort.
The stairs of death had a reputation... Even Auschwitz prisoners feared transport to Mauthausen.

Soviet prisoners were not treated as well as the rest of the Allied prisoners.

[scumdog]

. That convinced the IRA to finally acquiesce to British demands that their weapons caches were permanently and verifiably destroyed.

Did you see that on a Tuis ad somewhere??

[SARGE]

Did you see that on a Tuis ad somewhere??

Adj. 1 verifiable - capable of being verified; "a verifiable account of the incident"


Tui?

[Sanx]

Yeah, that's happened.

Did you see that on a Tuis ad somewhere??

Well, the decommissioning process (sorry - can't call it destruction, for some reason) was witnessed and verified by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, a body appointed to oversea this kind of thing precisely. The weapons were cataloged prior to destruction and the inventory was consistent with estimates of weapons held provided by British and Irish security services. In addition to the commission, the process was witnessed by two priests (one catholic, one anglican). The process was declared a success and complete by the British and Irish governments, Sinn Fein, the IRA, the Commission itself. Although the Reverend Ian Paisley declared the process an illustration of "...the duplicity and dishonesty of the two governments and the IRA", his deputy did agree the process had put a significant quantity of arms beyond use.

The Commission was headed by a General John de Chastelain, a retired Canadian officer who had previously been an ambassador to the US as well as Canada's Chief of Defence Staff. All in all, not someone you'd expect to be duplicitous or easily fooled.

The IRA's formal declaration of an end to its armed campaign only happened in 2005. So, there's not really been enough water under the bridge to judge its success yet. However, in the two years that have passed, there hasn't been the kind of attack the IRA were synonymous with. What's certain is that the IRA have completed their transformation into a pretty successful criminal organisation, and they certainly still have SOME weapons, but no more than Scumdog keeps under lock and key in his wardrobe...

[SARGE]

Well, the decommissioning process (sorry - can't call it destruction, for some reason) was witnessed and verified by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, a body appointed to oversea this kind of thing precisely. The weapons were cataloged prior to destruction and the inventory was consistent with estimates of weapons held provided by British and Irish security services. In addition to the commission, the process was witnessed by two priests (one catholic, one anglican). The process was declared a success and complete by the British and Irish governments, Sinn Fein, the IRA, the Commission itself. Although the Reverend Ian Paisley declared the process an illustration of "...the duplicity and dishonesty of the two governments and the IRA", his deputy did agree the process had put a significant quantity of arms beyond use.

The Commission was headed by a General John de Chastelain, a retired Canadian officer who had previously been an ambassador to the US as well as Canada's Chief of Defence Staff. All in all, not someone you'd expect to be duplicitous or easily fooled.

The IRA's formal declaration of an end to its armed campaign only happened in 2005. So, there's not really been enough water under the bridge to judge its success yet. However, in the two years that have passed, there hasn't been the kind of attack the IRA were synonymous with. What's certain is that the IRA have completed their transformation into a pretty successful criminal organisation, and they certainly still have SOME weapons, but no more than Scumdog keeps under lock and key in his wardrobe...

yea .. i dont have any weapons either ...

[sAsLEX]

actually says nothing about it either way.. for that you have to look at the LOAC ( laws of Armed Conflict)

Loved that lesson.


If you see an enemy on fire in front of you should you put him out of his misery?

[Dave Lobster]

yea .. i dont have any weapons either ...

Get a couple of priests (because the church is known for its honesty) to dig up a couple of patches of waste land near your house, find nothing, and I'll believe you.

PIRA may have stopped being naughty boys officially. But how many members now carry on their exploits as the Real IRA? How many of them have got real jobs, to fill their time? How many just do extortion and drug dealing to make a few quid? You may not see bombings in the news every day (you probably didn't here) like you did a few years ago, but the reign of terror is still there.