Three doctors among suspects in Britain terror plots

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We see them as terrorists, but there is more than one person who will see them as soldiers.

A soldier defends and/or fights for a country and wears that country's flag and uniform. A soldier is following a set of internationally agreed upon rules of engagement. If (s)he doesn't, (s)he will stand trial. A terrorist does none of that but specifically seeks to inflict harm on civilians. If you can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a soldier, then I don't think you can be helped.

[Dan J 277]

We see them as terrorists, but there is more than one person who will see them as soldiers.

A soldier defends and/or fights for a country and wears that country's flag and uniform. A soldier is following a set of internationally agreed upon rules of engagement. If (s)he doesn't, (s)he will stand trial. A terrorist does none of that but specifically seeks to inflict harm on civilians. If you can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a soldier, then I don't think you can be helped.

Not all conflict necessarily happens between distinct states. Not abiding by these international rules that will still be soldiers in their group. Its not as black and white as that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We see them as terrorists, but there is more than one person who will see them as soldiers.

A soldier defends and/or fights for a country and wears that country's flag and uniform. A soldier is following a set of internationally agreed upon rules of engagement. If (s)he doesn't, (s)he will stand trial. A terrorist does none of that but specifically seeks to inflict harm on civilians. If you can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a soldier, then I don't think you can be helped.

The French resistance in WW2 were essentially terrorists - but we accept that as justifiable because the Nazis were evil and the French by that time had no other means of fighting back. None of that really ties together with your above definition.

I think this is where differing world views come into play. I do see how these guys might be seen as 'soldiers' in certain parts of the world, though not in a way that we might understand - as it relies on certain assumptions about Western Civilization.

I'm not sure that the fact that some of these people were doctors is anything but incidental - though if I had to guess that might have been their ticket into the country (UK NHS imports a lot of foreign health workers these days).

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We see them as terrorists, but there is more than one person who will see them as soldiers.

A soldier defends and/or fights for a country and wears that country's flag and uniform. A soldier is following a set of internationally agreed upon rules of engagement. If (s)he doesn't, (s)he will stand trial. A terrorist does none of that but specifically seeks to inflict harm on civilians. If you can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a soldier, then I don't think you can be helped.

The French resistance in WW2 were essentially terrorists - but we accept that as justifiable because the Nazis were evil and the French by that time had no other means of fighting back. None of that really ties together with your above definition.

I think this is where differing world views come into play. I do see how these guys might be seen as 'soldiers' in certain parts of the world, though not in a way that we might understand - as it relies on certain assumptions about Western Civilization.

I'm not sure that the fact that some of these people were doctors is anything but incidental - though if I had to guess that might have been their ticket into the country (UK NHS imports a lot of foreign health workers these days).

The conventions I referred to didn't exist when the French and others fought the Nazis. If anything, they were a result of the experiences of WWII. The fact that some lunatics out there consider terrorists to be soldiers doesn't make them such.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We see them as terrorists, but there is more than one person who will see them as soldiers.

A soldier defends and/or fights for a country and wears that country's flag and uniform. A soldier is following a set of internationally agreed upon rules of engagement. If (s)he doesn't, (s)he will stand trial. A terrorist does none of that but specifically seeks to inflict harm on civilians. If you can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a soldier, then I don't think you can be helped.

Not all conflict necessarily happens between distinct states. Not abiding by these international rules that will still be soldiers in their group. Its not as black and white as that.

To me, no terrorist is a soldier. A soldier has honor. There's no honor in selectively targeting civilians. Women, children and the elderly are the terrorists preferred targets. That's cowardly warfare. You may bathe in relativism. I won't.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We see them as terrorists, but there is more than one person who will see them as soldiers.

A soldier defends and/or fights for a country and wears that country's flag and uniform. A soldier is following a set of internationally agreed upon rules of engagement. If (s)he doesn't, (s)he will stand trial. A terrorist does none of that but specifically seeks to inflict harm on civilians. If you can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a soldier, then I don't think you can be helped.

The French resistance in WW2 were essentially terrorists - but we accept that as justifiable because the Nazis were evil and the French by that time had no other means of fighting back. None of that really ties together with your above definition.

I think this is where differing world views come into play. I do see how these guys might be seen as 'soldiers' in certain parts of the world, though not in a way that we might understand - as it relies on certain assumptions about Western Civilization.

I'm not sure that the fact that some of these people were doctors is anything but incidental - though if I had to guess that might have been their ticket into the country (UK NHS imports a lot of foreign health workers these days).

The conventions I referred to didn't exist when the French and others fought the Nazis. If anything, they were a result of the experiences of WWII. The fact that some lunatics out there consider terrorists to be soldiers doesn't make them such.

To us - no. But I believe that some of the people out in the "darker parts of the world" sincerely believe it.

Its not hard to imagine - fighting back against a perceived oppressor with everything and anything at your disposal. I'd say it goes without saying that the people who carry out this sort of thing believe that themselves. They have a 'cause' after all - and others must understand it in order to support it in the way that they do.

[Dan J 277]

We see them as terrorists, but there is more than one person who will see them as soldiers.

A soldier defends and/or fights for a country and wears that country's flag and uniform. A soldier is following a set of internationally agreed upon rules of engagement. If (s)he doesn't, (s)he will stand trial. A terrorist does none of that but specifically seeks to inflict harm on civilians. If you can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a soldier, then I don't think you can be helped.

Not all conflict necessarily happens between distinct states. Not abiding by these international rules that will still be soldiers in their group. Its not as black and white as that.

To me, no terrorist is a soldier. A soldier has honor. There's no honor in selectively targeting civilians. Women, children and the elderly are the terrorists preferred targets. That's cowardly warfare. You may bathe in relativism. I won't.

This is the basic defineition of a soldier:

# One who serves in an army.

# An enlisted person or a noncommissioned officer.

# An active, loyal, or militant follower of an organization.

Honor doesn't make a soldier, Its only a value we expect our soldiers to have.

But even on our side, we have done some things that would put question to the idea of honor. We use private soldiers from Blackwater, or other companies, that are not expected to follow the same code of conduct. Does civilian casualties due to bombing count as honorable?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We see them as terrorists, but there is more than one person who will see them as soldiers.

A soldier defends and/or fights for a country and wears that country's flag and uniform. A soldier is following a set of internationally agreed upon rules of engagement. If (s)he doesn't, (s)he will stand trial. A terrorist does none of that but specifically seeks to inflict harm on civilians. If you can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a soldier, then I don't think you can be helped.

The French resistance in WW2 were essentially terrorists - but we accept that as justifiable because the Nazis were evil and the French by that time had no other means of fighting back. None of that really ties together with your above definition.

I think this is where differing world views come into play. I do see how these guys might be seen as 'soldiers' in certain parts of the world, though not in a way that we might understand - as it relies on certain assumptions about Western Civilization.

I'm not sure that the fact that some of these people were doctors is anything but incidental - though if I had to guess that might have been their ticket into the country (UK NHS imports a lot of foreign health workers these days).

The conventions I referred to didn't exist when the French and others fought the Nazis. If anything, they were a result of the experiences of WWII. The fact that some lunatics out there consider terrorists to be soldiers doesn't make them such.

To us - no. But I believe that some of the people out in the "darker parts of the world" sincerely believe it.

Its not hard to imagine - fighting back against a perceived oppressor with everything and anything at your disposal. I'd say it goes without saying that the people who carry out this sort of thing believe that themselves. They have a 'cause' after all - and others must understand it in order to support it in the way that they do.

I don't disagree that some may see this differently. But a cause, however just it may be perceived, doesn't make a soldier. Not in the sense that I have of what a soldier is. A soldier is a fighter with honor. A terrorist has no honor as there is no honor in targeting civilians including children, women and elderly.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We see them as terrorists, but there is more than one person who will see them as soldiers.

A soldier defends and/or fights for a country and wears that country's flag and uniform. A soldier is following a set of internationally agreed upon rules of engagement. If (s)he doesn't, (s)he will stand trial. A terrorist does none of that but specifically seeks to inflict harm on civilians. If you can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a soldier, then I don't think you can be helped.

The French resistance in WW2 were essentially terrorists - but we accept that as justifiable because the Nazis were evil and the French by that time had no other means of fighting back. None of that really ties together with your above definition.

I think this is where differing world views come into play. I do see how these guys might be seen as 'soldiers' in certain parts of the world, though not in a way that we might understand - as it relies on certain assumptions about Western Civilization.

I'm not sure that the fact that some of these people were doctors is anything but incidental - though if I had to guess that might have been their ticket into the country (UK NHS imports a lot of foreign health workers these days).

The conventions I referred to didn't exist when the French and others fought the Nazis. If anything, they were a result of the experiences of WWII. The fact that some lunatics out there consider terrorists to be soldiers doesn't make them such.

To us - no. But I believe that some of the people out in the "darker parts of the world" sincerely believe it.

Its not hard to imagine - fighting back against a perceived oppressor with everything and anything at your disposal. I'd say it goes without saying that the people who carry out this sort of thing believe that themselves. They have a 'cause' after all - and others must understand it in order to support it in the way that they do.

I don't disagree that some may see this differently. But a cause, however just it may be perceived, doesn't make a soldier. Not in the sense that I have of what a soldier is. A soldier is a fighter with honor. A terrorist has no honor as there is no honor in targeting civilians including children, women and elderly.

Well if we're being technical - soldiers have historically done all of the above. The rules have changed a lot these days - but I think only from our point of view. We have something of a luxury of overwhelming manpower, firepower and technology. That gives us a bit of leeway to dictate the terms of engagement and what a soldier should and shouldn't do

Of course that's all very well against the likes of Iraq and Afghanistan, but we haven't had a 'real' war against an enemy equivalent to us in both manpower and technology since WW2. I'd say the harder fought the war and the more chaotic it is, the more likely you are to see atrocities - and certain conceptions of honour become less black & white.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Honor doesn't make a soldier, Its only a value we expect our soldiers to have.

To you it is only a value. To me it is the central value.

Do we have soldiers that lack honor? Absolutely. In high ranks even. The vast majority of our soldiers, however, are men and women of honor. The same cannot be said about organizations made up of individuals that know nothing but hate and destruction. There, honor is a value that's simply not to be found.

[SqdnGuns 21]

It's all semantics.....

My dawg is bigger than your dawg........

No one's mind is going to be changed.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/02/ap3879628.html

Australia Arrests Suspect in UK Plot

Australian police have arrested a 27-year-old foreign doctor and are questioning another doctor over the foiled terror attacks in London and Glasgow, officials said Tuesday.

[Ban Hammer 13,919]

We see them as terrorists, but there is more than one person who will see them as soldiers.

A soldier defends and/or fights for a country and wears that country's flag and uniform. A soldier is following a set of internationally agreed upon rules of engagement. If (s)he doesn't, (s)he will stand trial. A terrorist does none of that but specifically seeks to inflict harm on civilians. If you can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a soldier, then I don't think you can be helped.

Not all conflict necessarily happens between distinct states. Not abiding by these international rules that will still be soldiers in their group. Its not as black and white as that.

yeah, that means a lot when some #### with an ak-47 in no discernable uniform opens fire on you

[Ban Hammer 13,919]

This is the basic defineition of a soldier:

# One who serves in an army.

# An enlisted person or a noncommissioned officer.

# An active, loyal, or militant follower of an organization.

Honor doesn't make a soldier, Its only a value we expect our soldiers to have.

But even on our side, we have done some things that would put question to the idea of honor. We use private soldiers from Blackwater, or other companies, that are not expected to follow the same code of conduct. Does civilian casualties due to bombing count as honorable?

would you care to try again? this should be most interesting

[Ban Hammer 13,919]

well since no answer, i'll throw this out as food for thought, the 3rd geneva convention

(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;

that means a chain of command and the individual is responsible for any war crimes they commit under his/her orders

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

a uniform of some type

© that of carrying arms openly;

not hidden under their clothes

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

a whole can of worms there which the average terrorists violates without a second thought.

(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.

which they don't do

link

Edited July 3, 2007 by charlesandnessa