[DoctorDeryOne]

BAGHDAD, Jan. 21 -- The armored sport-utility vehicles whisked into a government compound in the city of Karbala with speed and urgency, the way most Americans and foreign dignitaries travel along Iraq's treacherous roads these days.

Iraqi guards at checkpoints waved them through Saturday afternoon because the men wore what appeared to be legitimate U.S. military uniforms and badges, and drove cars commonly used by foreigners, the provincial governor said.

Once inside, however, the men unleashed one of the deadliest and most brazen attacks on U.S. forces in a secure area. Five American service members were killed in a hail of grenades and gunfire in a breach of security that Iraqi officials called unprecedented.

...

"They didn't target anyone but the American soldiers," the governor's aide said. washingtonpost.com

This is interesting not because of what happened, but the way in which people will consider it. Was this an irregulars' act of terrorism? Or was it a legitimate military operation? Some people consider the "War on Terror" to be an actual war, no different from any other (since they consider those captured to not be allowed to stand trial until the "war" is over). Now, if that is the case, then these men who committed these attacks were actually acting as legitimate soldiers, no different from any US soldier (except that the US is the aggressor and these guys are the defenders trying to oust them). Think about it. These men were obviously wearing US military clothing. But if the US is waging the war on terror, and a terrorist, by definition, would wear whatever he wants, then these guys were as much "in uniform" as any US soldier.

Let's break it down:

War: War on Terror
Factions: US vs. Terrorists

Uniforms
US: US military uniform
Terrorists: Terrorist uniform (A.K.A. any clothing)

[Evoryboypoto]

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

This is interesting not because of what happened, but the way in which people will consider it. Was this an irregulars' act of terrorism? Or was it a legitimate military operation? Some people consider the "War on Terror" to be an actual war, no different from any other (since they consider those captured to not be allowed to stand trial until the "war" is over). Now, if that is the case, then these men who committed these attacks were actually acting as legitimate soldiers, no different from any US soldier (except that the US is the aggressor and these guys are the defenders trying to oust them). Think about it. These men were obviously wearing US military clothing. But if the US is waging the war on terror, and a terrorist, by definition, would wear whatever he wants, then these guys were as much "in uniform" as any US soldier.

Let's break it down:

War: War on Terror
Factions: US vs. Terrorists

Uniforms
US: US military uniform
Terrorists: Terrorist uniform (A.K.A. any clothing)

Since it was aimed at military personal I would vote against terrorism, as it goal was appearently to inflict military causualities, not to inflict terror on the civilian population.

However claiming as uniforms any clothing is disingenious. And wearing the uniform of the enemy? I seem to remember a bunch of Nazis being shoot out of hand for playing that game. Definitely still non-uniformed illegal combatants.

Oh and this is interesting...
Terrorists: Terrorist uniform (A.K.A. any clothing
So I guess we are all in agreement, cool

[DoroKickcrofe]

Basically, the Muslim Terrorists are cowards.

[Seiblybiozy]

Seems to me that people are forgetting that other countries have terrorist alerts these day's....Even those who were against the Iraq war.

Fucking amazing isn't it......But we are to be the bad ones and the terrorist are the good guy's !

[masaredera]

Seems to me that people are forgetting that other countries have terrorist alerts these day's....Even those who were against the Iraq war.

Fucking amazing isn't it......But we are to be the bad ones and the terrorist are the good guy's !

Like who?

Andrew

[Seiblybiozy]

Like who?

Andrew

Uhhhh, France and Russia for one.

Edit: That's two, not one......lol

[masaredera]

Uhhhh, France and Russia for one.

Edit: That's two, not one......lol

Well Russia has a problem with Chechnya, terrorism there has a cause and is not some random happening. The Russian army has been brutal in their campaign against Chechnyans.

France? Well they did terrorize Mulisms in Algeria for eight years and they have a history of colonialism in the ME... but i have not heard of any terror alerts there recently... If there are there is certainly a history we can point to to help us understand why. (Not to justify it).

Andrew

[Jeffery]

However claiming as uniforms any clothing is disingenious. And wearing the uniform of the enemy? I seem to remember a bunch of Nazis being shoot out of hand for playing that game. Definitely still non-uniformed illegal combatants.

Oh and this is interesting... The rule is you can use the uniforms of the enemy, but not during Combat. e.g. if you don uniforms which make you look like the enemy, sneak around their line, then put on something distinguishing, lets say a large piece of red cloth tied to your arm, you can then legitimately open fire. If you do not make some effort to distinguish yourselves, its a war crime.

Theoretically you could wear any clothing you wanted so long as there is some common identifying mark. If one group all wore a certain type of turban, or a certain shirt, and of course as I mentioned earlier tying a cloth to your arm has been a common historical technique.

50. Treachery or Perfidy
Ruses of war are legitimate so long as they do not involve treachery or perfidy on the part of the belligerent resorting to them. They are, however, forbidden if they contravene any generally accepted rule.

The line of demarcation between legitimate ruses and forbidden acts of perfidy is sometimes indistinct, but the following examples indicate the correct principles. It would be an improper practice to secure an advantage of the enemy by deliberate lying or misleading conduct which involves a breach of faith, or when there is a moral obligation to speak the truth. For example, it is improper to feign surrender so as to secure an advantage over the opposing belligerent thereby. So similarly, to broadcast to the enemy that an armistice had been agreed upon when such is not the case would be treacherous. On the other hand, it is a perfectly proper ruse to summon a force to surrender on the ground that it is surrounded and thereby induce such surrender with a small force.

Treacherous or perfidious conduct in war is forbidden because it destroys the basis for a restoration of peace short of the complete annihilation of one belligerent by the other.

51. Legitimate Ruses
Among legitimate ruses may be counted surprises, ambushes, feigning attacks, retreats, or flights, simulating quiet and inactivity, use of small forces to simulate large units, transmitting false or misleading radio or telephone messages, deception of the enemy by bogus orders purporting to have been issued by the enemy commander, making use of the enemy's signals and passwords, pretending to communicate with troops or reinforcements which have no existence, deceptive supply movements, deliberate planting of false information use of spies and secret agents, moving landmarks, putting up dummy guns and vehicles or laying dummy mines, erection of dummy installations and airfields, removing unit identifications from uniforms, use of signal deceptive measures, and psychological warfare activities.

52. Improper Use of Identifying Devices
It is especially forbidden * * * to make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag, or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention. (HR, art. 23, par. (f).)

53. Flags of Truce
Flags of truce must not be used surreptitiously to obtain military information or merely to obtain time to effect a retreat or secure reinforcements or to feign a surrender in order to surprise an enemy. An officer receiving them is not on this account absolved from the duty of exercising proper precautions with regard to them.

54. National Flags, Insignia, and Uniforms as a Ruse
In practice, it has been authorized to make use of national flags, insignia, and uniforms as a ruse. The foregoing rule (HR, art. 23, par. (f)) does not prohibit such employment, but does prohibit their improper use. It is certainly forbidden to employ them during combat, but their use at other times is not forbidden. Law of Land Warfare, Field Manual 27-10 Chapter 2

FM 27-10 Chptr 2 Hostilities

So in this case, likely illegal

[ClorrerVeks]

And would identifying mark or insignia are the insurgents in Iraq empolying????

[scewDeasp]

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

This is interesting not because of what happened, but the way in which people will consider it. Was this an irregulars' act of terrorism? Or was it a legitimate military operation? Some people consider the "War on Terror" to be an actual war, no different from any other (since they consider those captured to not be allowed to stand trial until the "war" is over). Now, if that is the case, then these men who committed these attacks were actually acting as legitimate soldiers, no different from any US soldier (except that the US is the aggressor and these guys are the defenders trying to oust them). Think about it. These men were obviously wearing US military clothing. But if the US is waging the war on terror, and a terrorist, by definition, would wear whatever he wants, then these guys were as much "in uniform" as any US soldier.

Let's break it down:

War: War on Terror
Factions: US vs. Terrorists

Uniforms
US: US military uniform
Terrorists: Terrorist uniform (A.K.A. any clothing)

Wow, could you be any more enthusiastic about your position defending terrorists?

And exactly how is the US the aggressor? Are we aiming our weapons and firing them into crowded markets and police stations randomly killing anyone we can? Oh no...that's right, it's the poor, down trodden terrorists who only want the simple life for themselves and their countrymen and if we would just leave them alone we would all be singing Kumbaya.

[Jeffery]

And [what] identifying mark or insignia are the insurgents in Iraq empolying????

Assuming this is what you meant...

From the reports I've read a number of the groups do have uniforms.

[ClorrerVeks]

Assuming this is what you meant...

From the reports I've read a number of the groups do have uniforms.

The only one I've heard of wearing any identifying mark is the Mahdi Army wearing some kind of red arm band or something.

(although they appear to be involved in any number of other war crimes).

[kranfid]

Wearing an enemy uniform behind enemy lines is espionage and punishable by summary execution. They have one wounded individual, 3 dead bodies and the rest are heroes ( of their units, and of the Afghan people) , because they got away with it.

So the wounded guy is beyond summary execution, and is probably being "interrogated". I doubt that the Afghans would execute him, they'll just hold him til the Americans leave.

[PypeMaypetasy]

it is just another example of the lack of honor displayed by the people most on this forum call "freedom fighter's"

[kranfid]

How does it lack honor to do what they did?

[Jeffery]

The only one I've heard of wearing any identifying mark is the Mahdi Army wearing some kind of red arm band or something.

(although they appear to be involved in any number of other war crimes).

in the book My Killing Time in Iraq the author also recounted an engagement with fighters wearing entirely black. From another news article i read, a few of the various local militias also have some rudimentary uniforms.

Its not a very difficult requirement to fulfill, any kind of common identifying aspect of the uniform, and a leader. But if its immediately during the invasion and the resistance is spontaneous, as in there isn't enough time to organize a group, then those requirements are scrapped.

[DoctorDeryOne]

Since it was aimed at military personal I would vote against terrorism, as it goal was appearently to inflict military causualities, not to inflict terror on the civilian population.

However claiming as uniforms any clothing is disingenious. And wearing the uniform of the enemy? I seem to remember a bunch of Nazis being shoot out of hand for playing that game. Definitely still non-uniformed illegal combatants.

Oh and this is interesting...



So I guess we are all in agreement, cool

Right, but if you treat "terrorists" as a faction and not necessarily an illegal combattant, then they are more or less legal combattants.

[DoctorDeryOne]

Wow, could you be any more enthusiastic about your position defending terrorists?

And exactly how is the US the aggressor? Are we aiming our weapons and firing them into crowded markets and police stations randomly killing anyone we can? Oh no...that's right, it's the poor, down trodden terrorists who only want the simple life for themselves and their countrymen and if we would just leave them alone we would all be singing Kumbaya.

The US invaded Iraq. Although if you consider the terrorists as a specific faction, then I guess you could make an argument that they throew the first stone.

[Evoryboypoto]

Right, but if you treat "terrorists" as a faction and not necessarily an illegal combattant, then they are more or less legal combattants.

How so?

[iouiyyut]

Sal: Basically, the Muslim Terrorists are cowards.
proUSA: Seems to me that people are forgetting that other countries have terrorist alerts these day's....Even those who were against the Iraq war.
.....

I picked up these stupid opinions from below. First of all, the muslims are in their own country and fighting for their OWN independence agaist an illegal occupier and robber. The Americans are cowards - they asked UN to block the country for tens of years so that they certainly were poor and did not have any modern weapons to protect their homes. The UN did not give any permission for USA to occupy this vulnerable country - it was against the constitution of the UN. The Americans use high-tec weapons from carriers and planes - cruising missiles and DU, phosphore and cluster bombs, etc. Who are the real men and fighters?

In the world we have terrorist alerts only in those countries where CIA is organizing the plots. Russian KGB has organized their own plots (exploding the block houses was such according to a documentary film). For example, in Britain everybody knows that so called 7/7 and liquid bomb events were planned and implemented by CIA and MI5 together. Quite nicely when Bush and Blair wanted to have a nice support kick for elections (and now all the air passengers must suffer from this CIA crime as liquids are not allowed to planes). The secret police in EU is now following very carefully US spies and CIA agents and many terror plots have been interrupted. The only place where CIA can organize the comin new 911 in the Gulf of Persia - and accuse Iran....