New ruling on Iraqi suicide attacks

It has been decided that the suicide actions that seem to be taking place more constantly as we approach Baghdad, will now be judged as terrorist actions, and not military-as such, any suspicions or failed attempts, where would-be-terrorists are captured will be tried under the laws of prosecuting terrorism.

 

Thats not suprising. Warfare and its consequences changing all the time. Hazarding a guess, but I would have thought it was against Geneva convention anyway, so must be crinimal?

I would have thought the Germmans if they had got to invade England would have done no differently in calling our guys terrorists who popped up in their rear dressed as farmers.

But how do you prosecute a dead suicide bomber?

Find his/her commander I suppose.

 

I don't think a suicide attack is a terrorist act. Those people are after all just defending their country. They have the right to do so.

About the Geneva convention. If the suiciders are dressed as normal civilans and then they try this, they are guilty.

But if in uniform, I think they can. I'm not saying that I allow it. But I think it is understandabel

 

I agree with Erwin. Without going into ancient history, at least re W.W.II there is an acknowledged difference between someone in and out of uniform. One charge issue at Nuremberg was the question of Hitler’s Commando Order 1942 which called for the death of captured Commandos in uniform. Another War Crimes issue was the military legitimacy of Yugoslavian Partisans as soldiers or Franc Tireurs. The claim being they were ‘in uniform’ by virtue of the red star badge they wore and the decision it was too small to fulfil the uniform requirement of being ‘recognisable at a distance’.

In respect of the military recruiting such volunteers, the principal of the action is no different to the Japanese Kamikaze pilots. However, these men were recruited from within the Japanese airforce, wore their normal uniform and attacked in plain view. In Iraq they are calling for anyone to become a suicide bomber, especially to disguise themselves as a civilian and totally conceal their intention. Even if these bombers have come from the regular forces, they are renouncing their soldiers rights once they shed their uniforms and act in this way.

However, this does by no means leave them open to being subjected to torture or ad hoc execution, but does leave survivors, accomplices and instigators open to due prosecution as criminals, for which the ultimate penalty may well be death IF this is recognised law!

You should also consider both Sadman’s regime and the Coalition are actively calling for the people to rise-up and attack their oppressor/aggressor. This is clear incitement of the civil population to military action, make no mistake. Every ‘civilian’ bomber/sniper/whatever can therefore rightfully claim to be ‘answering the call’ in the name of right. If people rise-up to support the Coalition, will they be formally inducted into the armed forces, provided a uniform and weapons and issued orders? Of course not.

No.9

 

I agree with Erwin, the Geneva convention must be followed despite the anger and grief that war causes.

Best regards/ Daniel

 

The boring ‘siege’ of Basra. British forces around Basra spending their time escorting and distributing aid, playing football with Iraqis, entertaining the children, providing medical services to the people, endlessly patrolling villages and suburbs, rounding up Sadman’s political supporters and otherwise swinging their dicks.

Could they over-run Basra? Yes. So why don’t they? What would it achieve? No one in Basra is going anywhere. The US say Sadman’s forces would evacuate up to Baghdad? Really? What forces? Four men, two donkeys and an emaciated goat? Everyone knows if there was a ‘large’ evacuation of forces up the road, the flying cowboys would bomb and rocket the cr@p out of them as in ’91? Of course, it’s guaranteed there are always going to be some of Sadman’s die-hards in town who will manage to kill. An accepted risk for a soldier but usually there is a point to this sacrifice, which in this case? Will it shorten the war? No, Sadman has long resided himself to the fact that Basra is lost and all any remaining loyalists can hope to do now it take one or two of the enemy with them – assuming the loyalists still want to die?

So let’s save the body-bags, get a tan and wait for Baghdad to fall – and the US to be able to say they captured the first major town in Iraq – oh, this couldn’t be a reason could it? – of course not, how could you think such a thing :whistles and twiddles thumbs icon: (more polite than a dick swinging icon!)

No.9

 

10:00am 06 April, UK summer-time and the news announces British troops (Dragoons, Fusiliers and Black Watch) have launched a full attack on Basra. Chemical Ali believed dead, resistance not yet met.

Glad to see pongo HQ reads this forum!

Also news that the US flying cowboys have bombed a column of Kurd soldiers, American Rangers and John Simpson's BBC news crew. Injuries and fatalities. Chalk another one up for the flying wankers. :wobbling wrist icon:



No.9

[ 06. April 2003, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: No.9 ]

 

Carl, I know of the Iraqi war crimes (altough I'm not sure if they have signed the Geneva convention ). Anyway, I hope that the people responsible for that will be taken to court after the war. But there is no way the Iraqi war crime justify any other eventual war crimes.

Best regards/ Daniel

 

Forgive me if I seem or sound out of touch here Carl, but they are happening in Iraq in a war zone, not America. There is a war going on, it is not a police action.

Your statement ...if these were happening in Europe and in your countires, has me confused now..You surely do not think Iraq is your country?

 

Off course the coallition hastn't done this. They keep on bombing Iraqi's with heavy bombs and are attacking with all kind of tanks.

The Iraqi's cannot do anything about this. So the only thing that is left, is a suicide attack in which they try to kill as many invaders as possible.

 

Rights or wrongs, Again Ill say I was against this war, but thats old news now. There cannot be any other outcome and hope its as quick as possible.

But legalities of a war where one invades another as a defence measure? And no Ill not mention oil, or morals or WMD, although I hope to God wmd is found as even in victory we will want to see the results that this action was taken for.

A report today, not from Pravda or Le Soir, but part of a report from the BBC, I offer no comment on winners making the rules and deciding who faces war crimes. We see it discussed on these forums in relation to ww2 often.

Illegal crimes? BBC transcript:

Iraqi nerves

Those I have spoken to all say the same.

Who is illegal? The invaders or the invaded? The language of the new liberator to people here is strange indeed

They are nervous. They do not like Saddam Hussein, but they do not like the British army either.

"We are not Palestine, we are not Palestine!" one Iraqi man shouted.

"You can't just occupy us."

Many say they are scared to speak. Many say they just do not want trouble, they do not want war.

Many say they cannot trust the West after Western troops went home in 1991, leaving them to bear the punishment that the Iraqi leader's men meted out.

US President George W Bush keeps talking about liberating Iraq.

"We will bring you food", he says, as if he is imitating his local preacher in Texas. "We will bring you water."

"Criminal forces"

As I write I am in a country without a visa.


Coalition forces pledge things will be different to 1991

I never passed through an Iraqi border checkpoint. I invaded, too. I came in with the British forces.

By all rights of a sovereign nation I am here illegally. By what right am in Iraq? By what right is Britain? That is what Iraqis want to know.

And listen to the language of the British forces.

A spokesman at the military headquarters in Qatar called the Iraqi militias "illegal criminal forces".

This was perhaps in reference to the law of armed conflict which defines standards of warfare, such as wearing uniforms and not using civilians as human shields.

New world order?

But whatever you think of Saddam Hussein, how can you call a man defending his sovereign nation an illegal element?

Who is illegal? The invaders or the invaded? The language of the new liberator to people here is strange indeed.

British propaganda pumps happy Arabic music into Iraqi towns near here.

They produce leaflets with pictures of a smiling British soldiers earnestly shaking the hand of a bemused looking Iraqi.

The caption reads "This time we won't abandon you".

Perhaps that is true, perhaps it is not.

This war is almost too big to comprehend.

You lie in your tent here in the desert, small beneath the sky, and try to imagine that more than one quarter of a million soldiers are here - a huge proportion of Britain's army, a huge proportion of America's.

You see the faces of the soldiers, confused, out of their depth as they try to control the crowds, and you wonder where this is going.

A giant war - the birth of a new liberator with his new language - and the birth of a new world order that feels frightening and strange.

 

Perhaps of interest?

WMD - ILLEGAL

"Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project -- a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defence with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a 'war crime'.

Rokke said: 'There is a moral point to be made here. This war was about Iraq possessing illegal weapons of mass destruction -- yet we are using weapons of mass destruction ourselves.' He added: 'Such double-standards are repellent.' "

A point of note, this was a pre-war sentiment. However, the current war-cry is now 'liberating' the Iraqi people. If it's found the Iraqi people don't actually want to be 'liberated', they'll have to dream up another excuse won't they????

No.9

[ 06. April 2003, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: No.9 ]

 

Must admit, Im beginning to read the Sunday Herald website a lot more these days.

Take on all comers..

On this point...I see we the Brits are activly using concrete bombs....due to the accuracy of laser targetting etc, and maybey...with a view to minimising civilian and collateral damage...sounds good at first sight..
Then to prove the fact how useful they can be the RAF shows us a pic of some concrete bombs dropped in southern Iraq, a clump of them, big things..bet they can hurt....laser profficiency must have had a bad day though....all hit a grassy field..in the desert..nothing for miles around..

 

'This war is almost too big to comprehend,' I keep reading that and each time I laugh harder. This 'war' is nothing, this comment just shows how little sense of scale or historical presedent that these reporters have. I thought it rediculous to hear a reporter claim that a 'barrage of unprecedented scale and duration' had been launched by an artillery unit, it lasted for 20 minutes and involved 700 shells, I couldent help thinking about the week long bombardments of WW1, I find it difficult to take commentry by journalists with such a pathetic knowledge of what they are talking about seriously, particularly when they go on to criticise the statements of men like John Keegan. I also find the amount of staged footage rather laughable, though worrying that more people don't spot it (for example footage of US troops entering a house, man bashes the door in and stands in front of it whilst his entire squad rush in, no grenades, thunderflashes or anything, I seriously hope that was staged anyhow).

As for the suicide attacks, I feel that they are justifiable on the basis that actually these people are fighting against such an overwhelming force that really there is little else they can do. Geneva convention? CDS, they did sign it but I think that was in 1949 so god knows how different the nation was. Its hard to demand the Iaquis obey international law when the war is illegal, but more to the point whether they do obey it or not is rather irrelivant to our conduct in it. Carl, your hands tied behind backs issue, frankly our hands are tied behind our backs so that we have a nice safe moral high horse to sit on, what I mean is that frankly the coalition has to obey the geneva convention even if Iraq does not, otherwise how can we criticise the enemy if we are lowering ourselves to our level, no matter how much their behavious angers us. Apart from anything it would not surprise me if Iraqis have been killed by British and US soldiers when they were surrendering, hell, the US marines shot up a load of civilians who were running away just the other day. As for if the attacks were happening here, I doubt I would feel much different to the way I do now, it is a 'wrong' act but understandable considering what is going on. Thinking about it there is no reason to feel differently as British soldiers were killed in such an incident.

Basra, interesting, I think the main reason the British soldiers went in was to show the US how it is done (just kidding guys). If you look at what happened, the troops who went in werent supposed to take the town, they were supposed to 'see how far they could push through' and they managed to take the Ba'ath party HQ. I was watching the film of the troops taking the building, it was like a training demo of FIBUA, excellently executed. The 'hearts and minds' operation seems to be going relativley well and so on, the British and US attitudes seem to be very different. British soldiers are seen playing footie with kids, talking to people, letting children wear their berets or helmets and mixing with people, as well as issueing food etc. US soldiers dont seem to do much other than give out food and medical aid, though I did find it funny to see a US solder walking round with a load of people around him and the words 'KILL THEM ALL' on the side of his helmet. Anyhow, has anyone else noticed this contrast? One other thing, does anyone have any idea of the ratio of 'combat troops' to 'support troops' for the US and UK? I get the impression that the ratio is far greater with US troops than UK (that is to say there are proportionatly more British combat soldiers than support troops). Just something I have noticed. By the way, this is not intended to be a dig at the US, just read through it and it could be interpreted as such, it is just a suggestion/idea.

 

Didn't two smart Cruise missiles land in Turkey. Never mind missing the building, they missed the f/kin' country!

Next we'll find out 40 paratroops jumped and 16 missed the world!

No.9

ps. didn't we sink the Belgrano with an old 1935 WWII torpedo!

 

At the risk of upsetting anyone..ah hell who cares..yep a pre second world war design torpedo 9 but what else do you fire at an ex ww2 cruiser?

Steffan, staged...did you see the marine landrover stop few days ago...marine walk back 100 metres or so at camera crew request to hand Iraqi kid a sweet??

Again not wishing to upset, but just a sight that amused me, could have been our boys..but US troops house clearing...One kicked in door, moved in 2 followed into darkness, one stayed outside covering doorway...what attracted me was before door kicked in....Soldier standing against window next to door...Whoops..Dont know...but does personal safety and field craft go out of Window in heat of moment...?

Support troops...I was talking to a US soldier before all this started and he was telling me that US forces have ice cream makers sent out too..not a critisism just wish our guys had that too....Talking of ice cream...back to ww2...US launched an Ice cream Barge in 45 for use in the Pacific...Again not critisising just an interesting fact.

 

Is there a relevance the Belgrano was formerly the ex Pearl Harbour USS Phoenix? You’re not insinuating blue-on-blue are you?

No.9

 

Hang on a mo, where does the torpedo come into it??? By the way, did you know the Belgrano was originally the USS Phoenix, survivor of Pearl Harbour? You did? DAMN!

Like I say, I find the footage of some of the house clearing etc rather worrying. The staged photos and so on can be quiet pathetic at times, though I always find the bewildered expressions of the elderly Iraqis whom the allies are filmed 'befrending', its the sort of 'oh great, another lot of soldiers, what the hell are you doing here?' expression.

Support, well you do know that with the first supplies to be shipped into North Africa by the US in WW2 were 5 Cocacola factories right? Interesting no? The thing I find funny is that with all the complaints here about british soldiers not getting desert kit, people going on about them having to wear 'temporate DPM' rather than desert, yet the mighty US has soldiers walking round all in green as well, it would be nice if our media looked at that and realised that actually we are doing rather well considered. I found it funny that one paper commented about the number of troops who were buying their own kit (boots, webbing etc), well thats hardly surprising, it always happens, I would be very impressed if you could find a soldier who has gone into battle in the last 100 years with only his issue kit. Oh yeah, since when has the amount British soldiers complained been an indication of how poor their kit is? I was always led to believe that the only time they stopped was when they were shot at or killed! No offence intended, I always thought it was a great military tradition, soldiers complain constantly until they have to fight.

 

2 things for the brass to be worried about...

1..Brit forces stop complaining..

2. They stop laughing..

Torpedos? The conqueror had the up to date version, but apparantly they chose to fire contact torpedos of a different age, becuase the latest models were suceptable to the cold, and as the navy was not envisigaed to be fighting a war in the extremes of the south Atlantic this was not thought of...Which never sounded right to me...As during that period of the cold war I was under the impression that the hunter killers were to hold the line Iceland/Greenland gap and foray into Norwegian and Barents sea areas as necessary...Mustnt be as cold there then.

On the ice cream front, when I was in Germany we had a small USAF police team that worked alongside us...Two blokes that I would never hear a bad word of, they were stuck with us and although only rankers, gave great credit to their service and country in my view..Jelous? Too bloody true I was...often visited their quarters..pary animals..where we had a whole ex German barrack block split into rooms housing about a dozen of us, they had same block for 2, not split up, all theres, coke machine in corridoor, fridges full of ice cream I may add...think we have to accept Yanks like their ice cream....and furniture provided by PX. Nearest px for them was a long way away..

Could never get used though to doing patrols at night with a guy that looked like he had just got off his motorcylce...California Highway Patrol without the hat...And it was very unnerving at times to be walking through building we all worked in to suddenly be thrown against a wall and a sun glasses chips guy telling you to assume the positon at gun point..Didnt know if they were joking at times...Great guys though.

Could never

 

If it comes to stories about British troops and not knowing the intentions of Americans, our old RSM told us about an incident when he was based near some US troops, he went out once with the girl who did their laundry, was back at her house in bed when there was a knock at the door, turned out to be a HUGE black US Marine, chest caked in medals, sleves with more stripes on them than Sgt Bilko, he assumed he was sleeping with this Marines girl and so did (what appeared to be) the wise thing and picked up his clothes and slinked out (naked). Was rather embaressed to discover later that this bloke had just come round to drop off his washing.

As for the torpedos, that reminds me of the thing about the Royal Marines, technically their raison d'etre is to 'protect europe from encursions from Norway and the arctic', rather an ironic echo of the cold war, I think its about time someone changed it.

There is a third thing for them to worry about, when they run out of tea. I swear somewhere along the line there was a mixup between tea and marajuana.