Because some of them are secretly aiding terrorists to kill civilians, which the US is trying to put an end to.
[/quote]
New Study Says U.S. Night Raids Aimed at Afghan Civilians
U.S. Special Operations Forces have been increasingly aiming their night-time raids, which have been the primary cause of Afghan anger at the U.S. military presence, at civilian non- combatants in order to exploit their possible intelligence value, according to a new study published by the Open Society Foundation and The Liaison Office.
Because some of them are secretly aiding terrorists to kill civilians, which the US is trying to put an end to.
New Study Says U.S. Night Raids Aimed at Afghan Civilians
U.S. Special Operations Forces have been increasingly aiming their night-time raids, which have been the primary cause of Afghan anger at the U.S. military presence, at civilian non- combatants in order to exploit their possible intelligence value, according to a new study published by the Open Society Foundation and The Liaison Office.
But there was a pretty comprehensive study who uses suicide bombings and why and I suppose you have read it and can provide scholarly arguments why this is wrong.
Also, the ad hominems are reaching a level here that us truly frightening in their banality, you syphilitic shit-eating sap.
There, an alliteration. [/quote]
So is this the Robert Pape study u antisemite austrian arsehole, see another alliteration.
Ifs it not could u direct me to it, thanks sweetie.
Because some of them are secretly aiding terrorists to kill civilians, which the US is trying to put an end to.
New Study Says U.S. Night Raids Aimed at Afghan Civilians
U.S. Special Operations Forces have been increasingly aiming their night-time raids, which have been the primary cause of Afghan anger at the U.S. military presence, at civilian non- combatants in order to exploit their possible intelligence value, according to a new study published by the Open Society Foundation and The Liaison Office.
A study funded by George Soros? Let’s just leave that one.[/quote]
ISAF Data Show Night Raids Killed over 1,500 Afghan Civilians
WASHINGTON, Nov 2, 2011 (IPS) - U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) killed well over 1,500 civilians in night raids in less than 10 months in 2010 and early 2011, analysis of official statistics on the raids released by the U.S.-NATO command reveals.
One clear blind spot in the contemporary study of terrorism is the role religious ideology plays as a motivating force and driver of strategy. In the scholarship on suicide missions in particular, Jessica Stern is correct to regard occupation theory as “the received wisdom” among certain segments of academia. The Globalization of Martyrdom makes an important contribution by demonstrating that occupation theory fails to explain a significant portion of contemporary suicide attacks-specifically, those executed by cells affiliated with or inspired by al-Qaeda-and providing an exhaustively researched alternative explanation.
Occupation theory, generally associated with Robert Pape’s Dying to Win, contends that the “bottom line is that suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation.” As proof for this claim, Pape contends that the primary objective of every suicide campaign from 1980 to 2003 was coercing a foreign power to remove forces seen as occupying a homeland. Scholars who accept this explanation frequently downplay religious or ideological motives for suicide attacks.
Moghadam provides three reasons that occupation theory fails to explain a large portion of contemporary suicide attacks. First, he notes that “these attacks increasingly occur in countries where there is no discernible occupation.” (p. 34) While suicide attacks employed in nationalistic struggles (such as those of Palestinian groups or the LTTE) occur in the context of occupation, Moghadam lists a number of countries that cannot be considered occupied that have seen significant suicide attacks: these include Bangladesh, Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan.
Second, even where suicide attacks are carried out in response to occupations, they often do not target the occupier: witness how suicide attacks in Iraq “aimed instead at Shias, Kurds, and Sufis, in an apparent effort to stir ethnic tensions in the country and delegitimize the Iraqi government in the eyes of Iraqis.” Third, Moghadam contends that “even if they do target the occupation forces, many SMs [suicide missions] are not carried out by those individuals who, theoretically, should be most affected by the occupation.” Again turning to Iraq, most suicide attacks against occupation forces were carried out by foreign jihadis (such as Saudis, Syrians, and Kuwaitis) rather than Iraqis.
In contrast to Pape’s analysis, which relegates religion to virtual irrelevance-Pape remarkably, and in defiance of all available evidence, contends that though religion matters to al-Qaeda, it matters “mainly in the context of national resistance to foreign occupation”-Moghadam’s major thesis is that the rise of al-Qaeda, and the growing appeal of salafi jihadi ideology, is producing a “globalization of suicide missions.” (p. 2)
Based on such factors as conflict type, ideology, geographic scope of actors, targets, and goals, Moghadam distinguishes localized suicide attacks from globalized suicide attacks-which often occur in areas “not identified by all parties as zones of conflict,” (p. 57) are overwhelmingly associated with salafi jihadi groups, and are often connected to transnational militancy.
These globalized suicide attacks cannot be analytically ignored for the simple fact that since 9/11, suicide operations “by Al Qaeda, its affiliates, and other Salafi-Jihadist groups have risen exponentially, far outnumbering the attacks conducted by the previously dominant groups.” (p. 251) Moghadam provides a meticulous account of salafi jihadi ideology, including the distinctions between salafi jihadism and contemporary mainstream salafism, as well as important case studies for suicide missions in countries that range from Afghanistan to Uzbekistan. Most instructive is his extended analysis of the 7/7 bombings in Britain, and the use of suicide attacks in Iraq.
Moghadam finds that ideology has an impact on suicide attacks on the individual and organizational level. He does not argue that ideology is the cause of these attacks, since the causes “are complex and must be found in the interplay of personal motivations, strategic and tactical objectives of the sponsoring groups, and the larger societal and structural factors affecting the bomber and the group.” (p. 254) But on the individual level, ideology “helps reduce the suicide attacker’s reservations about perpetrating the act of killing and dying. Specifically, ideology fills two roles: it helps the suicide bomber justify the act, and it helps the suicide attacker to morally disengage himself from his act and from the victim.” (p. 255)
And on the organizational level, most contemporary suicide campaigns “are designed to undermine the stability of a regime that the perpetrating groups deem illegitimate,” (p. 259) in particular when such governments are seen as un-Islamic, and these campaigns have a broad conception of the enemy.
“Salafi-Jihadists make few distinctions between their targets, be they the UN, tourists, government officials, or Jews,” Moghadam writes. “All of these targets are perceived as bastions of the infidel, and attacks against any of them serve the cause of the grand struggle against the enemies of Islam.” (p. 260) This contrasts with the more limited understanding of the enemy in traditional suicide campaigns. Thus, though occupation does play a role in globalized suicide attacks, the concept must be understood in a new way.
Salafi-Jihadists have a far more abstract conception of occupation. It is no longer necessary for foreign troops to be present in a country in order for that country to be perceived as occupied, though such a foreign presence certainly helps. More important is the perception that a given regime is complicit in the attempted subjugation and humiliation of Muslims, which renders the country occupied in a more indirect way. (p. 260)
Moghadam has made a vital contribution to the literature, one that separates the new “globalized” suicide attacks from localized attacks-for which the traditional understanding of occupation theory does provide a strong explanation. Moghadam’s subject matter expertise, rigorous research, and lucid writing should make The Globalization of Martyrdom a vital study, one that will help transform the way scholars understand the factors that drive suicide operations.
Because some of them are secretly aiding terrorists to kill civilians, which the US is trying to put an end to.
New Study Says U.S. Night Raids Aimed at Afghan Civilians
U.S. Special Operations Forces have been increasingly aiming their night-time raids, which have been the primary cause of Afghan anger at the U.S. military presence, at civilian non- combatants in order to exploit their possible intelligence value, according to a new study published by the Open Society Foundation and The Liaison Office.
A study funded by George Soros? Let’s just leave that one.[/quote]
ISAF Data Show Night Raids Killed over 1,500 Afghan Civilians
WASHINGTON, Nov 2, 2011 (IPS) - U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) killed well over 1,500 civilians in night raids in less than 10 months in 2010 and early 2011, analysis of official statistics on the raids released by the U.S.-NATO command reveals.
Also, this was not the only group, just one of the more organized ones.
One of the key figures in ex-Gestapo cop killing was an Austrian who was very well respected by the underworld and the police because he was such an elegant and sophisticated thief. He organized quite a lot of killings at least in 45, until the police indicated that they could no longer look the other way.
[/quote]
Gestapo were not ‘cops.’ They were a political ‘state police’ organisation that worked inside AND outside the Reich. ‘Orpo’ and ‘Kripo’ were the ‘police’ during the Nazi era and those that collaborated with the Gestapo should’ve been hunted down also. Not interested in any of your links as you would surely be aware.[/quote]
Majority of the Gestapo killed or assassinated were those involved in rounding up Jews and sending them to concentration camps, or hunting down members of the resistance (usually by using such proactive methods as torture of captives and reprisal killings).
I am quite sure Orion can find some neutral, unbiased sources to show us that this is the official mandate of the IPS under first the US Civil Administration and later the democratically-elected Iraqi Government. I mean, surely he can’t have been talking out of his ass for the last 3 pages right? Riiiiiight?[/quote]
That is not and never was the point.
The point was that if you are police and work for the occupiers you not exactly are, nor are you seen as, an innocent bystander.
Also, a strawman is not just a character in the Wizard of OZ, you know, the one without a brain?[/quote]
Awwwww…what do you know.
Guess his exhaustive google search turned up exactly zero sources to back up those ludicrous claims then.[/quote]
You man the claims I never made ?
Um, yeah !?![/quote]
I see, you didn’t just spend the last 3 pages justifying suicide bombings on people queueing up for a job in the Iraqi Police by comparing them with the Gestapo, amirite?
My mistake, must have been some other poster called orion.
If you see him around, do tell him we would like to see some evidence verifying his retarded claims. Eh? Thanks mate.
Because some of them are secretly aiding terrorists to kill civilians, which the US is trying to put an end to.
New Study Says U.S. Night Raids Aimed at Afghan Civilians
U.S. Special Operations Forces have been increasingly aiming their night-time raids, which have been the primary cause of Afghan anger at the U.S. military presence, at civilian non- combatants in order to exploit their possible intelligence value, according to a new study published by the Open Society Foundation and The Liaison Office.
A study funded by George Soros? Let’s just leave that one.[/quote]
ISAF Data Show Night Raids Killed over 1,500 Afghan Civilians
WASHINGTON, Nov 2, 2011 (IPS) - U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) killed well over 1,500 civilians in night raids in less than 10 months in 2010 and early 2011, analysis of official statistics on the raids released by the U.S.-NATO command reveals.
Is that supposed to be good or bad? Is that high? Low? What’s a “civilian?”[/quote]
The fundamental principle on which the law of armed conflicts is based is expressed as follows: In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited. Two basic rules follow from this principle. The first prohibits the use of weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause unnecessary injury. The second, in order to ensure respect and protection for the civilian population and civilian property, obliges the Parties to the conflict to distinguish at all times between the civilian population and combatants, as well as between civilian property and military objectives and to direct their operations only against military objectives.[P. I, 35; P. I, 48 ]
Any Person not belonging to the armed forces is considered as a civilian and the same applies in case of doubt as to his status. (Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war (Convention IV of 12 August 1949)).
Basically, these night raids which targets civilians are war crimes.
Any Person not belonging to the armed forces is considered as a civilian
[/quote]
That’s what I thought. So Osama bin Laden, al-Awlaki etc were “civilians” and it was a “war crime” to kill them.
[quote]
Basically, these night raids which targets civilians are war crimes. [/quote]
Basically you’re a scumbag.[/quote]
If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered " unlawful " or " unprivileged " combatants or belligerents. They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.
So according to you scumbag follow the law, but those who break it are hero.
If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered " unlawful " or " unprivileged " combatants or belligerents. They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.
So according to you scumbag follow the law, but those who break it are hero. [/quote]
I have no idea what you are talking about fella. “Unlawful combatants” do not “follow the law.” On the contrary, as their name suggests, they have “violated the 'laws of wars[*].”
Additionally, these unlawful combatants are killed in the course of hostilities and are not captured so they don’t become ‘prisoners of war’ whereupon their status as “unlawful combatants” would require judicial review. The US is in full compliance with international law. So do you see now how your statement above is back-to-front?
If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered " unlawful " or " unprivileged " combatants or belligerents. They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.
So according to you scumbag follow the law, but those who break it are hero. [/quote]
I have no idea what you are talking about fella. “Unlawful combatants” do not “follow the law.” On the contrary, as their name suggests, they have “violated the 'laws of wars[*].”
Additionally, these unlawful combatants are killed in the course of hostilities and are not captured so they don’t become ‘prisoners of war’ whereupon their status as “unlawful combatants” would require judicial review. The US is in full compliance with international law. So do you see now how your statement above is back-to-front?
If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered " unlawful " or " unprivileged " combatants or belligerents. They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.
So according to you scumbag follow the law, but those who break it are hero. [/quote]
I have no idea what you are talking about fella. “Unlawful combatants” do not “follow the law.” On the contrary, as their name suggests, they have “violated the 'laws of wars[*].”
Additionally, these unlawful combatants are killed in the course of hostilities and are not captured so they don’t become ‘prisoners of war’ whereupon their status as “unlawful combatants” would require judicial review. The US is in full compliance with international law. So do you see now how your statement above is back-to-front?
What are you talking about. Civilians can’t take part in hostilities. If they do it, they become unlawful combatant. They will not always be killed in the course of hostilities, they can be captured or they can escape. They cannot be killed, they have to be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state. That’s why the US is not in compliance with international law.
If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered " unlawful " or " unprivileged " combatants or belligerents. They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.
Civilians directly participating in hostilities - either individually or as part of a group - become legitimate targets of attack, though only for the duration of their direct participation in hostilities.
What are you talking about. Civilians can’t take part in hostilities. If they do it, they become unlawful combatant.
[/quote]
Um…that’s what I was talking about. You just paraphrased what I said in my previous comment.
True. But they CAN be killed and hopefully will be. IF we were to capture one of them they would then have additional rights so it is in our interests to kill them rather than capture them yes? And within the law yes? That’s what I’m saying fella.
Wrong. They cannot be killed once they have been captured alive. But if we don’t capture them alive then…well they’re dead. They died in the course of hostilies in which they were unlawfully engaged. See?
[quote]
If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered " unlawful " or " unprivileged " combatants or belligerents. They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. [/quote]
[quote]joebassin wrote:
Civilians directly participating in hostilities - either individually or as part of a group - become legitimate targets of attack, though only for the duration of their direct participation in hostilities.
That refers to civilians aiding “lawful combatants”(usually the armed forces of a nation state)and it allows the killing of those civilians under international law. Has nothing to do with drone strikes as they don’t target civilians. You were talking about “civilians” who are killed in collateral damage during the targeted killing of terrorists. This is getting beyond ridiculous now.
Sooo, basically the terrorist loving joe claims that since terrorists attacking U.S. troops are not members of a recognized armed force, they are civilians. If they are captured during combat, they MAY be deemed as unlawful combatants…but, if they run away or are killed, they remain civilians. So, if they are killed while they are attacking our troops, our troops become war criminals for defending themselves…right…that makes sense…why did we ever stop carpet bombing…
