ladajo wrote:There is a differnce between Terrorists and Insurgents.
"Insurgent" has a very broad definition. I think the most meaningful distinction one can draw is between terrorists and revolutionaries, in that only terrorists are willing to target civilian populations. People killing people for political reasons is not new and not band nor good sans the details, but you can draw the distinction that killing civilians for political purposes is generally morally wrong. Killing a collaborator or collateral damage are exceptions to the rule, but the rule when addressing the generalities, does draw the necessary distinctions we need between terrorists and everyone who might be considered "moral" or just.
The shocking thing about Islam is it teaches this distinction is not valid and you may slaughter to your heart's content in the name of Allah. Hence, the only major world religion one can justly judge as intrinsically evil.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Anyone who is a combatant that is not wearing a uniform and insignia designating him as a fighter is a war criminal by the Hague convention. These people are bound (and actively trying to) drag the war into the civilian population. Of course after WW2, they made the partisans (who were exactly the same) war heroes. Guess one mans terrorist is another mans war hero, depending on what side you are on.
Skipjack wrote:Guess one mans terrorist is another mans war hero, depending on what side you are on.
That's exactly what I object to. If you remove the standard that soldiers wear uniforms, then you have groups hiding behind civilians and killing civilians with impunity. That's what hague was opposed to and really if there is to be anything approaching rules to war, these are the rules that need to be respected. Combatants wear uniforms, even when they're rebel scum. Rogue Squadron would not be caught without them.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Skipjack wrote:Anyone who is a combatant that is not wearing a uniform and insignia designating him as a fighter is a war criminal by the Hague convention. These people are bound (and actively trying to) drag the war into the civilian population. Of course after WW2, they made the partisans (who were exactly the same) war heroes. Guess one mans terrorist is another mans war hero, depending on what side you are on.
The conventions only require a non-discard able "badge of allegiance) and not a uniform, although the discardability threshold is pretty low. Long story short, as a practical matter, the effectual requirement is that you behave otherwise as a person under military discipline and as part of a hierarchy or responsibility, and the badge of allegiance requirement is waived by most belligerents.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
Skipjack wrote:Guess one mans terrorist is another mans war hero, depending on what side you are on.
That's exactly what I object to. If you remove the standard that soldiers wear uniforms, then you have groups hiding behind civilians and killing civilians with impunity. That's what hague was opposed to and really if there is to be anything approaching rules to war, these are the rules that need to be respected. Combatants wear uniforms, even when they're rebel scum. Rogue Squadron would not be caught without them.
I agree with that. Otherwise the battle is always dragged into the civilian population and then we get the whole mess with collateral damage and all that. The Germans had it in WW2. The US now has the same problem with terrorists and "insurgents".