The following attacks on civillians by Iraqi insurgents are bad

[quixotecoyote]

The following acts by Iraqi insurgents/Saddam Hussein are bad and not justifiable. Anyone wanna argue?

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/iraq/article/791349--iraq-bombings-sparks-fears-of-civil-war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Yazidi_communities_bombings

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=55782

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/04/terror_attacks_rock.php

http://www.unpo.org/content/view/8508/236/

[gumboot]

The following acts by Iraqi insurgents/Saddam Hussein are bad and not justifiable. Anyone wanna argue?

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/iraq/article/791349--iraq-bombings-sparks-fears-of-civil-war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Yazidi_communities_bombings

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=55782

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/04/terror_attacks_rock.php

http://www.unpo.org/content/view/8508/236/



I'd potentially argue that the embassy bombings are legitimate.

[tyr_13]

It's the fault of the US.

[Beerina]

I'd potentially argue that the embassy bombings are legitimate.

Actually, embassy bombings would be the most illegitimate of all. Remember when that murderous thug in the Iranian embassy shot up the London crowd, killing the police woman? England GB The UK still recognized the inviolate nature of the embassy (although, quite frankly, immediately shooting back would have been legitimate.)

[BeAChooser]

I'd potentially argue that the embassy bombings are legitimate.

Really? Attacks against the Egyptian, Iranian, Spanish and German embassies you consider legimate? Pray tell, why?

[gumboot]

Actually, embassy bombings would be the most illegitimate of all. Remember when that murderous thug in the Iranian embassy shot up the London crowd, killing the police woman? England GB The UK still recognized the inviolate nature of the embassy (although, quite frankly, immediately shooting back would have been legitimate.)


Iran wasn't at war with the UK, nor was the murderous thug an Iranian soldier.

[gumboot]

Really? Attacks against the Egyptian, Iranian, Spanish and German embassies you consider legimate? Pray tell, why?

Because if you're at war with a foreign country, their government is a legitimate target. Given that the UNSC authorised the Multinational Occupation of Iraq, any member state of the UN is potentially a legitimate military target.

[BeAChooser]

Because if you're at war with a foreign country, their government is a legitimate target. Given that the UNSC authorised the Multinational Occupation of Iraq, any member state of the UN is potentially a legitimate military target.

So these insurgents are at war with the whole UN, even those states who voted against the occupation? LOL!

And I thought leftists claimed there can be no war without a formal declaration of war from the attacking side. Where's the declaration from these insurgents?

And I thought one couldn't fight a war against terrorists. But you say terrorists can fight a war against us? Doesn't that seem a wee bit unfair? :D

[fuelair]

Unfortunately, there are still a number of people who do not follow the point that terrorists and their supporters cannot be fighting legitimately no matter where they are fighting or who they are fighting. The only legitimate WARFARE is between armies of legitimate governments clothed in identifying uniforms and following the rules/laws of warfare . The terrorists do not qualify under any of those and thereforeare not legitimate - besides which I am under the impression that embassies are still not legitimate targets.

[geni]

And I thought leftists claimed there can be no war without a formal declaration of war from the attacking side.

Err citation needed.


Where's the declaration from these insurgents? :D

Under international law they don't need one. Taking up arms to defend against an invading force is allowed as long as you follow certian conditions. Their adherence do said conditions is questionable mind.

[geni]

The following acts by Iraqi insurgents/Saddam Hussein are bad and not justifiable. Anyone wanna argue?


http://www.unpo.org/content/view/8508/236/

Winston Churchill perhaps:

"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."

[Freddy]

Unfortunately, there are still a number of people who do not follow the point that terrorists and their supporters cannot be fighting legitimately no matter where they are fighting or who they are fighting. The only legitimate WARFARE is between armies of legitimate governments clothed in identifying uniforms and following the rules/laws of warfare . The terrorists do not qualify under any of those and thereforeare not legitimate - besides which I am under the impression that embassies are still not legitimate targets.

My understanding is that you can tell a country that has become hostile that they can no longer have an embassy in your country, but you don't get to blow it up before they leave.:)

[BeAChooser]

Under international law they don't need one. Taking up arms to defend against an invading force is allowed as long as you follow certian conditions.

But embassies and their staffs are not invaders. They are there at the invitation of the Iraq government. A duly elected government.

You leftists just get more and more ridiculous in your claims. It's truly surreal. :D

[geni]

But embassies and their staffs are not invaders. They are there at the invitation of the Iraq government. A duly elected government.

Internation law doesn't care about such bleeding heart liberal niceties. It's the geneva conventions that are at issues here and the only bleeding they cares about is the real thing. "A duly elected government" isn't a relivant concept. The closest would be Goverment of a sovereign state.


You leftists just get more and more ridiculous in your claims. It's truly surreal. :D

Interesting strawman.

[Freddy]

Internation law doesn't care about such bleeding heart liberal niceties.

Not so much. Embassies and their staffs are not legitimate targets in a war.

It's the geneva conventions that are at issues here and the only bleeding they cares about is the real thing. "A duly elected government" isn't a relivant concept. The closest would be Goverment of a sovereign state.



Interesting strawman.

A duly elected government, if there is one, is the only entity in Iraq that has the authority to declare war on the United States. So it matters a great deal whether there is a functioning Iraqi government and whether that government has declared war on the United States. If there is one and it hasn't, that makes the insurgents' actions unlawful even if they did not unlawfully dress as civilians and use human shields.

I suppose you might mean merely that a government need not be "duly elected" in order to be recognized under international law. That may be correct, but the distinction is hardly germane to this topic.

[Cylinder]

The terrorists do not qualify under any of those and thereforeare not legitimate - besides which I am under the impression that embassies are still not legitimate targets.

Like every other target, the legal justification would be on a case-by-case basis. Clearly an embassy that is taking an active role in the occupation of a territory would be a legitimate military target.

[BeAChooser]

Clearly an embassy that is taking an active role in the occupation of a territory would be a legitimate military target.

I haven't heard anything suggesting the Iraqi government asked either the Germans, Egyptians, Iranians or Spanish to close their embassy and leave. So surely you aren't suggesting they were legitimate military targets. That would be downright … crazy. :D

[McHrozni]

Because if you're at war with a foreign country, their government is a legitimate target.

Except that diplomats aren't a part of the government. In fact, their entire purpose is to allow for communication between governments, regardless of the state of conflict.

See Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations for more. Here, a sample from Wikipedia (the article is not quoted, but explained):

Article 22. The premises of a diplomatic mission, such as an embassy, are inviolate and must not be entered by the host country except by permission of the head of the mission. Furthermore, the host country must protect the mission from intrusion or damage. The host country must never search the premises, nor seize its documents or property. Article 30 extends this provision to the private residence of the diplomats.

International law explicitly forbids diplomatic missions be protected from any damage. What makes you think they're a legitimate target in an armed conflict again?

Given that the UNSC authorised the Multinational Occupation of Iraq, any member state of the UN is potentially a legitimate military target.

If it were possible, this would be even more wrong than your first sentence. The UN is not an entity that could be declared war upon, it is an entity that represents (is supposed to represent) the world as a whole. In theory, only wars sanctioned by the UN are legitimate in the first place, and moreover, any resistance to the UN-led force is actually illegitimate. Think of it as a worldwide police force - if you fight against the UN troops, you're committing a crime, which is legally similar to resisting arrest. Resist a lawful arrest for something you didn't do in (just about) any country, and you will face criminal persecution - especially if you were violent and perhaps even killed the cop that tried to arrest you.

This is, of course, the theory. Things aren't nearly as nice in reality, but since you started with the rather severe stretch of what is legitimate and what isn't, I really don't see any need to address that.

McHrozni

[geni]

Not so much. Embassies and their staffs are not legitimate targets in a war.

Vienna convention only covers state actors and in any case you are only prevented from attacking Embassies within the country you are the goverment of.



A duly elected government, if there is one, is the only entity in Iraq that has the authority to declare war on the United States. So it matters a great deal whether there is a functioning Iraqi government and whether that government has declared war on the United States. If there is one and it hasn't, that makes the insurgents' actions unlawful even if they did not unlawfully dress as civilians and use human shields.

If you take the position that the US is that at the invitation of the goverment of iraq then article 3 kicks in.

[Freddy]

Vienna convention only covers state actors and in any case you are only prevented from attacking Embassies within the country you are the goverment of.


But if you are at war with country A and you bomb country B's embassy in country A, then you have committed an act of war against country B. An act of war that intentionally targets civilians is illegal, so if the embassy was intentionally targeted then it is indeed a war crime.

The state actor part seems like a snare, but the convention applies only to state actors precisely because it is already unlawful for non-uniformed non-state actors to wage war.

And it wasn't the US embassy that was bombed anyway. My point there was that if the Iraqi government permits the presence of US troops, then acts of war committed against those troops by Iraqis constitute the waging of war by unlawful combatants.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

You leftists just get more and more ridiculous in your claims. It's truly surreal. :D

Do you have anything to add with this point or are you deliberately trying to be glib? No, seriously. I'm unaware of the political affiliation of the person who wrote the original comment, but some of the individuals responding to him seem to have some leftist sympathies in other threads. I suppose in the future I should take any racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted comment made by a conservative and attribute it to you based on your political affiliation? Likewise I suppose now that a few "straight" conservatives have been caught having homosexual affairs I assume you're now a homosexual as well? Are you understanding my point about broad generalization solely for the sake of being an ass?