Abu Musab al-Zarqawi = worm food...

Rogue Keeper on 15/6/2006 at 13:55

Simp... is a person who is not going to make complex analytical predjudices about killing the enemy.

Of course, killing civilian population is a violation of the Geneva Convention...

Quote:

(http://www.genevaconventions.org/)

Part IV. Civilian Population

Section I. General Protection Against Effects of Hostilities

Chapter I. Basic rule and field of application

Art. 48. Basic rule

In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.

Art. 49. Definition of attacks and scope of application

1. "Attacks" means acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offence or in defence.

2. The provisions of this Protocol with respect to attacks apply to all attacks in whatever territory conducted, including the national territory belonging to a Party to the conflict but under the control of an adverse Party.

3. The provisions of this section apply to any land, air or sea warfare which may affect the civilian population, individual civilians or civilian objects on land. They further apply to all attacks from the sea or from the air against objectives on land but do not otherwise affect the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict at sea or in the air.

4. The provisions of this section are additional to the rules concerning humanitarian protection contained in the Fourth Convention, particularly in part II thereof, and in other international agreements binding upon the High Contracting Parties, as well as to other rules of international law relating to the protection of civilians and civilian objects on land, at sea or in the air against the effects of hostilities.

...but this paper is rather sort of a dry theory detached from reality, right.

paloalto on 15/6/2006 at 18:14

Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary

And both Al Queda, or the Taliban really couldn't give two shits about America, if it weren't for its involvement in the Middle East. Check out Osama's history - he got really pissed because of "Infidels in our holy sites". As for the Taliban, they were concerned about keeping those under their yoke faithful, rather then the "Destroy the American way of life" bullshit that the Bush administration spews.

I bielieve there is evidence to show that for some of these groups it is a world wide movement to spread their version of Islam to the entire world.

Chimpy Chompy on 15/6/2006 at 19:39

Well it's probably on their list of "things we'd quite like to see happen!". But a far-off and implausible goal like that wouldn't be enough to drive terrorism like this. It's just extra fuel, on top of reactions to perceived or real injustices.

Skol on 15/6/2006 at 20:15

Quote:

If you go to war you need to dehumanise your enemy in order to kill them. Most people would have trouble killing other people but if you tell yourself they are subhuman then you can kill without the guilt. So why does it come as a shock to people to hear marines singing this?

They weren't cheering because he was singing about killing the enemy; he was singing about killing innocent bystanders.

I'm totally indifferent. Not shocked at all.

Swiss Mercenary on 15/6/2006 at 23:30

Quote:

Considering that those guys are, I mean, were supposed to 'liberate' the 'people' of Iraq...

Quote Posted by paloalto

I bielieve there is evidence to show that for some of these groups it is a world wide movement to spread their version of Islam to the entire world.

Yeah, for a minority of them, it is. However, you know, its a tad more difficult to recruit suicide bombers for the cause of "Enlightening those heathens across the ocean" compared to "Driving those heathens out of our Holy Land."

TheGreatGodPan on 17/6/2006 at 20:46

Quote Posted by paloalto

As do men like Osama,not just the superpowers,or anyone who wants to drive a wedge between groups for their own purposes.He tolerated us when we were putting weapons in his hands to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.But not after the Soviets left.He needs enemies to drive his terrorism and his desire to put the Caliphate back in the seat of power.

Have you ever heard of "Knights Under the Prophet's Banner"? It's Ayman al-Zawahiri's account of their fight in Afghanistan. He explicitly denies any connection between their group and the U.S, the C.I.A or Pakistan's I.S.I. It's possible (although I'd say very unlikely) that he was lying because he didn't want to be associated with us, but I've never heard of anyone who was part of it calling bull on that, even though followers of rivals in MAK like Abdullah Azzam & Mustafa Shalabi would have motivation to do so.

I don't believe that al-Qaeda is the result of U.S foreign policy. That overstates the importance of the U.S and understates the goals of al-Qaeda. They view themselves as part of (the inspirational part especially) an international uprising of Muslims. The battlefield for them extends to wherever Muslims come into contact with non-Muslim regimes and sometimes people (be they Catholic in the Phillipines, Buddhist in Thailand, Eastern Orthodox in the Balkans, Communist in fewer places now than before not that they yap about in any less in their writings, Hindu in India, Protestant and Animist in Sudan & Nigeria as well as other African countries, and obviously Jewish in Israel) as well as insufficiently Islamic regimes (Algeria and Indonesia are where al-Qaeda franchises have caused the most trouble, but Saudi Arabia and Egypt are their main targets and non-al-Qaeda Islamists have become a large problem in Bangladesh as well). They don't believe in any sort of tolerance, and any truce offered is in accordance with the Koranic injunction that it be solely for tactical reasons and last no more than 5 years. Hoping to get on their good side is futile. Do you think any of them appreciate when Clinton intervened in Kosovo when the K.L.A tricked him with their hoax massacres, allowing their allies (and yes al-Qaeda do refer to them as their allies to this day) to ethnically cleanse the area? Of course not. As far as they see it, our options are conversion, dhimmitude or death. Governments can attempt to make themselves less vulnerable (despite his normal incompetence, W has largely been able to pull that off with the exception of placing so many Americans in as dangerous a place as Iraq), because attempting to impress them with your respect for human rights and principled stand against imperialism doesn't mean jack shit.

jermi on 18/6/2006 at 09:51

"Listen. Understand. That Terminator is out there. It can't be reasoned with, it can't be bargained with ... it doesn't feel pity of remorse or fear ... and it absolutely will not stop. Ever. Until you are dead."

Probably the most schizophrenic culture ever.

TheGreatGodPan on 18/6/2006 at 20:33

Quote Posted by jermi

That reminds me of an (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/TOXICVAL.HTM) excellent Steve Dutch piece.

jstnomega on 21/6/2006 at 02:33

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

Every major power needs a bogeyman. You think they would have killed al-Zarqawi if they didn't have another lined up to step into his shoes? ;)

Yes. (Making a list & checking it twice.)

(http://www.blackfive.net/main/)

Quote:

June 20, 2006
Job postings from Al Qaeda in Iraq
Posted By Uncle Jimbo

CENTCOM announced minutes ago that one of the men expected to take the place of the now-room temperature Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has also reached thermal equilibrium near Baghdad. The spokesman for the military briefed reporters on the death of Sheikh Mansur, displaying before and after mug shots of the dead terrorist and explained his significance to the insurgent network in Iraq. So far, none of the wire services have picked up the story; I will fill in the details as they become available.