Henry-Finland

Post #12:

Henry

Henry-Finland

Let me still clearify the last questions. It was my mistake to stress the questions in wrong order. So Irepost the last questions here:

Let us presume that my country has a goverment that has been elected somehow. It attacks, e.g. a smaller country, kills about 100.000 civilians, do not respect international law, tells after killing these people, "that the task is accomplished".

1) Did this country have any right to attack my country?
2) Has the "small country" any right to defend themselves after that we have declared that the "task is accomplished"?
3) If they do, can they still attack my country?


4) If they do not have those rights, can we then begin looting the national resources of that country, "on the behalf of the people"
5) and they still would not have any rights to resist?

Henry

Henry-Finland

Correct me if I am wrong, but You once answered me in the same line, something about; ...we do as we wish and there is nothing You can do, except whining...

Your is totally out of line.
It is like saying: Let's hope we all get an opportunity to kill ourselves and others.

Btw. I wrote about this kind of thinking in a thread:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=111156
See post #8

I think You should read it.

Happy readings. :thumbs:

Henry

Matty G

It is a matter of perception.

When you believe you are defending your family, greater community and your honour I doubt you are going to give a damn about international law. Neither will you care about whether your opposition thinks your tactics are inhumane or your targets are "soft". I can not think of a large scale and long term military conflict in which inhumane actions have not been undertaken.

Furthermore, just because the White House perceives the current war in Iraq as "over" does not necessarily mean everyone shares that analysis. Similarly, just because the White House sees its armies as liberators and the Iraqi insuregents as "illegal combatants" does not mean that those "illegal combatants" consider themselves as either evil or terrorists, let alone "illegal combatants". Did George Washington consider himself a terrorist leader? I doubt it. But he successfully overthrew an oppressive imperial world power.

Remember, there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong; only different opinion. The moral superstructure of our society is defined solely by popular opinion.

Cheers

Rasputin09

Discussions of legality about various aspects of warfare or military action is a quagmire. Legality, as defined vaguely by various treaties, defines certain legal "conditions" for a declaration of war or military action. However, the real world rarely fits neatly within these conditions, leaving various countries to interpret them as their national security warrants. Historically, it is normal for most countries to ignore most, if not all, legalities when defending the survival of their state or social group, which is only natural and is to be expected.

McGargoyle

I have no inclination to engage in a discussion of the general morality of resistance, since it is impossible to resolve without deciding in a case to case basis, so I only offer what I remember of the technical legality:
As far as I know you (the resistance fighter) have to wear something to distinguish yourself from the civilians, be it an armlet like many did in WWII or some improvised kind of uniform.

Rasputin09

Technically, you're correct. It's stipulated under Article IV, Clause 2 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, in which it states:

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


However, it is almost contradicted, and leaves much room for argument regarding many insurgency campaigns today, by Clause 6 of that same Article which states:

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Discussions of legality on whether an insurgent army is fighting within the limits of the Geneva Convention are often a matter of opinion, rather then verifiable fact. This is especially true when one side can point at Clause 2 and say that they're not wearing any distinctive sign, and the other side can point at Clause 6 and say that they have not had the time or resources to do so.

Liberal

No actually I just called you a whiner in that thread.

Not ourselves just others.

Sorry I was not impressed.

Henry-Finland

Quote:
To which Liberal answered:
Oh, I missed that. Can You be more specific, if You find the thread?
I am very interested in who's the whiner, but let's go back to that thread, shall we. I do not think You are a coward, so You do not mind if I do You some questions there?





To which Liberal answered:
And how would You that?
I sugest that You really put up a thread like: "If I had any power..."
Just so that we do not derail this thread.





To which Liberal answered:
Well, I did not think You would be.
But did You find Yourself there? :thumbs:
You can answer that in the other thread.

Thank You. I count on You.

Henry

J-D

Henry, did you say Finland has never been occupied? Wasn't it occupied for hundreds of years, up to 1918, first by Sweden and then by Russia?

On your more general question: I think the problem is this. After the Second World War, the Allies prosecuted people in both Germany and Japan for war crimes. However, nobody was prosecuted just for being a soldier in the war. In other words, fighting in a war was not considered illegal. But suppose you're an ordinary German or Japanese soldier while the war is still going on. According to the Allies, you're doing nothing illegal. But they'll still try to kill you! And that's not considered illegal either.

So, if you're fighting in a resistance movement against an occupying power, it's entirely possible that they'll acknowledge that what you're doing is legal and still try to kill you anyway.