BBC Website: "Your Reaction to Margaret Hassan's Murder"

Sounds like Barnsley.

 

Outside the debate on combatant criminality is the question of how do you
oppose an invader that is much better financed, equipped and trained to
use said equipment?

 

Oooh, a new sub-thread. Ta.

A far-from-academic question, which my grandparents faced in Guernsey
some 65 years ago. Since it had been made clear that any violent
resistance would trigger rounding-up and shooting of hostages, there
wasn't a lot they could do. Hunker down and hope for rescue was the gist
of what they did. Resist in minor, symbolic ways, like having a radio,
giving confusing directions, or painting V signs. But killing passing
Germans? forget it.

Of course, if you believe in life after death, and you believe the
quality of that life depends mainly on how you resist the invaders, that
opens up a whole new perspective. In that case,the answer to your
question is: Asymmetric warfare.

--
<8P Wizard
Suzuki GS550 "I like that. Nicely shite" - TOG
Golf GTi 16v
ANORAK#17b BOMB#19 BOTAFOT#138 BREast#5 COFF#24
COSOC#8 DFV#11 STG#1

 

Yes we do there's monsters trying it all the time

SHIT! confused Half Life with Real Life again. Ah well, never mind. I'm
sure the judge will understand.

 

There's just less of them. If the Yanks do 95 per cent of the fighting
then it stand to reason they will do 95 per cent of the filmed war
crimes.

 

Given the 10 commandments are in the Bible which is the first 2/3rds
of the Koran I'm pretty certain it also forbids murdering blokes.

Of course if you invade somewhere you have to take the hit...

 

If I understand the rules of warfare correctly:

If you kill unarmed, injured men / women / children from the air,
that's ok.

If you do it from the ground, it isn't.

The fact is the Iraqi was under a blanket and could have been hiding
the means to hari kari the lot of them to a better place.

The war is wrong and the yanks shouldn't be there. But once they are
there you can't blame individual soldiers for trying to keep the risks
down.

 

tallbloke bored us all completely to death with wittery prose along the
lines of:

That's pretty much it, plus tactics used by British forces are not as
confrontational as the American ones. 30 years of experience in NI has
taught them this...

 

Maybe that could be the defence of the religious nutters who behead
people for the camera: Before you accuse me, chop someone's head off
yourself.

 

Not true, actually. A little reading on the wars in, say, Kenya, Aden,
Malaya, ... would get rid of that particular misapprehension.

 

That's not exactly recent history; we weren't Mr and Mrs fluffy during
the Boer war either. NI, first Gulf and Kosovo would probably be better
comparators.

 

Firebomb from 10,000 feet?

Phil

 

"Encouraging you to train to be fuckwits like us."

 

Northern Ireland would include Bloody Sunday, among other things.

 

Coventry was trashed by the Luftwaffe to trash Coventry not to liberate it.

Your point is?

 

@news.btinternet.com:

No doubt my opinion is skewed by the fact that:

a)They shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place.
b)They've made it clear they don't give a shit about the Geneva Convention or
their own rules of engagemnet.
c)They've proved themselves to be a bunch of cunts on lots of previous
occasions over the last 50 years.
d)The people they say they are there to liberate don't want 'em.

 

I should have known better than to use the word tautology loosely when
addressing a computer scientist.

See my reply to that post.

 

(DannyBoy) wrote in

Fair enough, lets have Bush up for the rap then.

 

To require that only politicians who have actively served[1] in a
theatre of war can declare war on another country would be good start.

[1] This does not include signing up for the national guard to get out
of the draft and then not even turn up for that.

 

tallbloke bored us all completely to death with wittery prose along the
lines of:

And, er, Dresden?