Honour and moral high ground in war? Knights and shining armour is long gone. You fight war on the terms offered or you lose
Osama bin Laden is dead.
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
Laws of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 1856 Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law abolished privateering
- 1864 First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field"
- 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive projectiles Under 400 grams Weight
- 1874 Project of an International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War (Brussels Declaration).[19] Signed in Brussels 27 August. This agreement never entered into force, but formed part of the basis for the codification of the laws of war at the 1899 Hague Peace Conference.[20][21]
- 1880 Manual of the Laws and Customs of War at Oxford. At its session in Geneva in 1874 the Institute of International Law appointed a committee to study the Brussels Declaration of the same year and to submit to the Institute its opinion and supplementary proposals on the subject. The work of the Institute led to the adoption of the Manual in 1880 and it went on to form part of the basis for the codification of the laws of war at the 1899 Hague Peace Conference.[21]
- 1899 Hague Conventions consisted of four main sections and three additional declarations (the final main section is for some reason identical to the first additional declaration):
- I - Pacific Settlement of International Disputes
- II - Laws and Customs of War on Land
- III - Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of Principles of Geneva Convention of 1864
- IV - Prohibiting Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons
- Declaration I - On the Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons
- Declaration II - On the Use of Projectiles the Object of Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases
- Declaration III - On the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body
- 1907 Hague Conventions had thirteen sections, of which twelve were ratified and entered into force and two declarations
- I - The Pacific Settlement of International Disputes
- II - The Limitation of Employment of Force for Recovery of Contract Debts
- III - The Opening of Hostilities
- IV - The Laws and Customs of War on Land
- V - The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land
- VI - The Status of Enemy Merchant Ships at the Outbreak of Hostilities
- VII - The Conversion of Merchant Ships into War-Ships
- VIII - The Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines
- IX - Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War
- X - Adaptation to Maritime War of the Principles of the Geneva Convention
- XI - Certain Restrictions with Regard to the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Naval War
- XII - The Creation of an International Prize Court [Not Ratified]*
- XIII - The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War
- Declaration I - extending Declaration II from the 1899 Conference to other types of aircraft
- Declaration II - on the obligatory arbitration
- 1909 London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War largely reiterated existing law, although it showed greater regard to the rights of neutral entities. Never went into effect.
- 1922 The Washington Naval Treaty, also known as the Five-Power Treaty (6 February)
- 1923 Hague Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare[22]
- 1925 Geneva protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare[23]
- 1927-1930 Greco-German arbitration tribunal
- 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact (also known as the Pact of Paris)
- 1929 Geneva Convention, Relative to the treatment of prisoners of war
- 1929 Geneva Convention on the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick
- 1930 Treaty for the Limitation and Reduction of Naval Armament (London Naval Treaty 22 April)
- 1935 Roerich Pact
- 1936 Second London Naval Treaty (25 March)
- 1938 Amsterdam Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War.[24]
- 1938 League of Nations declaration for the "Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War"[25]
- 1945 United Nations Charter (entered into force on October 24, 1945)
- 1946 Judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg
- 1947 Nuremberg Principles formulated under UN General Assembly Resolution 177 21 November 1947
- 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
- 1949 Geneva Convention I for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field
- 1949 Geneva Convention II for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea
- 1949 Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
- 1949 Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
- 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict
- 1971 Zagreb Resolution of the Institute of International Law on Conditions of Application of Humanitarian Rules of Armed Conflict to Hostilities in which the United Nations Forces May be Engaged
- 1977 United Nations Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques
- 1977 Geneva Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
- 1977 Geneva Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts
- 1978 Red Cross Fundamental Rules of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts
- 1980 United Nations Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW)
- 1980 Protocol I on Non-Detectable Fragments
- 1980 Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices
- 1980 Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons
- 1995 Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons
- 1996 Amended Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices
- Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War (Protocol V to the 1980 Convention), 28 November 2003, entered into force on 12 November 2006[26]
- 1994 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.[27]
- 1994 ICRC/UNGA Guidelines for Military Manuals and Instructions on the Protection of the Environment in Time of Armed Conflict[28]
- 1994 UN Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel[29]
- 1996 The International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
- 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (Ottawa Treaty)
- 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court entered into force on 1 July 2002.
- 2000 Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, entered into force on 12 February 2002.
If you can't hold honor and your morality in times of utmost pressure (war) you cannot hold them at all. Once you give up your morality, even if it is only for 1 instance in your mind, you never get it back. That is the true test of your honor and morality, can you hold onto it when all circumstances and opinion is against it and all you emotions are telling you its ok to give it up.
Why do you think combat vets have such a tough go of it re-integrating with civilian life? War separates the soldier from the man. You don't ... you die.
I like the part about bush, cheney etc.
I think for the sake of all of the families etc of the murdured people in the trade centers and the
pentagon, they needed to know he was killed, for the closure, and possibly a bit of comfort for
what he did to them.
I don't care what others want to do as far as revenge, it is simply mass murder, and the first
consideration go to the families.
Re: Osama Bin Laden Killed, Obama Says
By your definition, when was the last 'war'?
By your definition, when was the last 'war'?
If Osama was brought in alive:
He would be no more of an intelligence asset than are his computers.....which they did bring in alive.
Every idiot Islamist on the face of the earth would be looking for a group of hostages to murder while demanding his release.
Every idiot lefty, whiny, moronic twit in the west would be wringing their hands and crying abouthis "illegal" arrest.
The idiots would also be insisting he be taken to the ICC, which doesn't even have the death penalty.
IT IS WAR, NOT NIGHT COURT
I see a number of possible flaws in your reasoning.
Few people would expect OBL to be released if he was captured by the US authorities. The people who support OBL are already hostile to the US, so I doubt holding him alive would change much. On the contrary, holding OBL in a well publicized location could be used as bait to catch other people of interest.
An illegal assassination is far more serious than an illegal abduction.
The ICJ would be the most objective place to try OBL. But since OBL is responsible for serious crimes in the US, few would expect the US to hand him over to another authority.
Moving on...
Assuming what we've been told about this operation is accurate, then bringing in OBL alive should have been a primary objective. Colpy seems to believe they could only bring OBL or his computers, but not both. Perhaps Colpy could explain his reasoning why they couldn't bring in OBL alive and confiscate his computers at the same time. It couldn't be a weight issue as they brought in his dead body.
A secondary objective should have been to retrieve everyone and everything else of intel value in the compound. The people around OBL would also be useful sources of intel. Instead the US left these people for the Pakistani authorities to detain. That doesn't make any sense either.
I'd support assassinating OBL if the was the only way to neutralize him. But based on the story we've been told, that doesn't appear to be the case. OBL was unarmed when the Navy Seals assassinated him. There was a fairly substantial gun battle before that event. If OBL wanted to arm himself, he had lots of time to do it. Yet he was unarmed. We were told that many Navy Seals were involved in this operation. By the time the commandos entered the building and were pointing a firearm at OBL, escape was no longer a possibility.
So something doesn't add up regarding this story. Here are a couple of possibilities which might explain what happened.
1) OBL committed suicide before they got to him. I can understand why the US would want to deny OBL this small victory, but it doesn't explain why they allowed the other people to be detained by Pakistani authorities.
2) OBL and the people around him had no intel value. In order for this to be true, the US had to know everything OBL knew and knew they knew everything OBL knew. Which raises other questions. How did they know?
I find it unlikely that OBL's compound wasn't bugged. The latest spy technology is secret, but I think its safe to assume its more sophisticated than what is publicly available. Modern eavesdropping devices are probably the size of a grain of sand or even smaller:
Dust: A Ubiquitous Surveillance Technology - Blogcritics Sci/Tech
3) Another possibility is that OBL has been working for the US government all along. That would explain a lot. It explains why silencing/assassinating OBL would be a primary objective rather than capturing him alive. It also explains why his wives and other people near OBL had little value and why his computers and other items had such a high value.
4) OBL is still alive and being held secretly by the US. His death is just a cover story so they can interrogate him without outside interference and dispose of him when he no longer has value.
I admit I'm speculating and have no real facts beyond what we've been told publicly about this operation. However, when I examine this story from various angles, the information and explanations simply don't add up. Certainly there is some smoke and mirrors going on here and I doubt we will ever know the whole story about what went down in Pakistan last week. Most likely many files regarding OBL, al Qaeda and 9/11 will remain classified for decades or permanently.
Last edited:
No one but idiots would think that. our enemies are still our enemies no matter what we would have done. We have made far more happy than angry.
Yea, those college kids are going to be soooo happy when they have to pay off their loans, lol.
Thank you Osama!
Last edited:
No, not at all. We are never going to have peace with the have nots in this world and no matter what we do there will always be have nots and they will always try and take. Life is just not fair.
Sure there are always going to be the have-nots. Then there are the don't-wants. Then there will be the people who feel betrayed when they're abandoned as no-longer-neededs. The fine line is walking a balance between them all and not appearing arrogant about it.
I was referring to releasing the pic.
Have at it.
Isn't that what I said?
I agree.
Then which one would you be talking about?
I have.
And that's why I say the RoE impedes effective application of 3BW.
I don't blame them.
Ron's post took care of that erroneous claim.
I find killing anything, to be an abhorrent act. I can however, justify it in some cases.
That's moral relativism. I'm ok with that.
If I am held to a higher standard, where my enemy isn't. My life is at greater risk. Even worse, the outcome of the conflict, is at jeopardy. I'll cite Korea, Vietnam as examples, Afghanistan and Iraq as excellent examples.
Last edited:
If you reduce this to a battle of haves vs have-nots then the easiest way to win would be to turn the have-nots into haves. Take say 95% of the income of the 1000 best paid CEO's in the wrold and spread it around and the war would be over. Of course your characterization of the issue is so wrong I can do nothing but laugh at it.
The real issue is the americans wanton neglect of any other countries sovereignty when it comes to protecting the supply of oil into the US. What some refer to as 'American interests'. Just like Japan launched an attack against the US on Dec 7, 1941 because their supply of oil and energy was threatened the US will attack anyone who may threaten their supply of oil and energy. Whether this attack is in the form of trade embargos, political sanctions or military actions will only be determined by how much of a threat there is to the energy supply. Control of the oil producing regions of the world by the US is their ultimate goal and the base reason for all foriegn policy regarding those regions. Don't ever kid yourself that this is not a war to control the production and flow of oil.
I guess in a way your analysis can be considered somewhat correct even if misguided. The arab world are the haves (they have the oil) and the US are the have-nots.
Oh right....Pearl Harbour was the fault of the Americans....NOW I understand! Those poor Jap fascists! Forced to invade China and butcher millions, starting in 1937, because they had heard through their crystal ball that the USA was going to impose sanctions on July 20, 1940!
FORCED to create the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperiety Sphere and to invade Hong Kong, New Guinea, Singapore, southeast Asia, the Solomons, and on and on and on.....all the fault of the United States.
Here's a hint, if you want to engage in revisionist history without basis in fact, find an audience that doesn't know what they know........
Holy f*ck man! I simply said the attack on Pearl was because the Japanese supply of oil and energy was threatened. I did not in any way say the US shouldn't have imposed the sanctions. Try to get a grip of the meaning of a post before you fly off the handle.
WASHINGTON – The United States calls Osama bin Laden's death a potential "game changer" in Afghanistan, but has also begun to modulate its message for fear that runaway optimism will create pressure to suddenly exit a war still up for grabs.
The top U.S. commander in eastern Afghanistan sought to walk that fine line Tuesday. Army Maj. Gen. John Campbell told reporters at the Pentagon that he sees great potential for bin Laden's death to draw dispirited Taliban fighters away from the insurgency.
Videos of bin Laden that were captured in the raid on his compound and released by the U.S. government on Saturday depict a gray-bearded bin Laden wrapped in a blanket, watching himself on TV. Campbell described him as "alone and desperate" and said the image could send a powerful message to Taliban fighters who bear the brunt of combat while their leaders hide in Pakistan.
US seeks to balance message on bin Laden death - Yahoo! News
The top U.S. commander in eastern Afghanistan sought to walk that fine line Tuesday. Army Maj. Gen. John Campbell told reporters at the Pentagon that he sees great potential for bin Laden's death to draw dispirited Taliban fighters away from the insurgency.
Videos of bin Laden that were captured in the raid on his compound and released by the U.S. government on Saturday depict a gray-bearded bin Laden wrapped in a blanket, watching himself on TV. Campbell described him as "alone and desperate" and said the image could send a powerful message to Taliban fighters who bear the brunt of combat while their leaders hide in Pakistan.
US seeks to balance message on bin Laden death - Yahoo! News
On re-read, you're correct....I misunderstood.
Sorry about that. I went off half-cocked.