Demand Koran Replace U.S. Constitution

[CFLarsen]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Jews are only prohibited from eating pork, they are not prohibited from touching it or having pig based products such as shoes or wallets or footballs made from it. They have no problem dealing with it. And besides the Rabbis have said even eating pork is allowed if
a life is at stake. Thus the Jews have a point of view which is diametrically opposed to that of the moslems when it comes to pork except that both cannot eat it but only Jews can come in contact with it.

How will you prevent Jews from inhaling pork dust? You are going to draw the ire of all Jews around the world, if you try that.

You have construed this by yourself without resorting to the true meaning of the words I wrote. I said the British force-fed IRA prisoners so there was precedence for this. These prisoners were on a voluntarily hunger strike so force feeding them, yes, may've been considered torture since it subverted their wish to die in the name of whatever it was they were trying to prove. Oh yes, getting the British out of Northern Ireland so they can kill all the Protestants without fear of interference. I did not say it was not a form of torture, I did not say it was used to extract information. It was in fact used to prevent ignorant people from needlessly killing themselves so on that level I would have to agree with it. Ah yes, Northern Ireland, another wonderful example of why religion works.

You are talking around the issue: Why is using a religiously based method of extracting information not torture? You are clearly using their religion against them.

It is very much a question of my moral compass. And yes, I do know how religious fanatics think and again while you advocate killing moslem terrorists or extremists, I advocate offending them without killing them.
I am not feigning any ignorance about that.

You forget that you suggested pork bullets. What are you going to with the bullets, if not shoot them at people?

I don't care what they welcome. I will not kill someone because they would welcome it. End of story.

Then, why are you suggesting shooting pork bullets against them??

If you would that's your choice. There is no evidence that they would end up martyrs in paradise.

*groan*

If you don't think so, why are you using pork to fight them?

If you know there is then by all means follow your heart and kill them. I have not seen that evidence.

Here's a suggestion, Steve: Why don't you write a proposal based on what you have suggested here, and have it published in a newspaper or something. Be interviewed by the press. Or, just put a website up, where you advocate the methods you have described here.

Go on record in the press. Unfortunately, you can't get away with proposing it anonymously, but you just have to live with that.

An Iman can issue an edict but it would have to be accepted by a larger body.

No it doesn't. All he has to do is say the word.

I believe that dispensations are handed out individually and not for groups. I think an Iman would have a hard time trying to get pork legalized for devout moslems en masse but I could be wrong.

Find out, then.

He would have to directly contravene the word of Allah in the Koran.

No, Steve. An imam is the one who is allowed to interpret the Koran.

With all due respect,

You appear to be entirely missing the entire point of this proposal. What we are talking about is a form of psychological warfare designed to hinder the enemy's ability to fight.

Nothing about this is new. Nothing about this is specific to Muslim terrorists. Would modern armies use psychological warfare against Christian terrorists? Yes, of course.

What we are talking about SPECIFICALLY, is exploiting the PRACTISED BELIEFS of said enemy. Note the careful distinction there. Not the religious dogma. Not the non-practised beliefs. not the verbatim text of their religious or cultural documents. The PRACTISED BELIEFS.

Would we support exploiting the PRACTISED BELIEFS of Christian terrorists as a form of psychological warfare? Absolutely. Is force feeding Christian Terrorists a form of psychological warfare? Well, it's unlikely you'd be able to force feed an enemy unless they'd been captured, so that would make them a POW, and force feeding them would be illegal.

What you don't seem to get is the PRACTISED BELIEFS part. The rules of their religion are actually irrelevant. If fighting rabid Christian terrorists who believed sugar was evil and touching it condemed you to the nether regions for all eternity, I would support showering said terrorists with sugar. Is it in their religious text? Of course not. But that's irrelevant. If they PRACTISE the prohibition of sugar that makes the tool useful for psychological warfare.

In the same way, if some Muslim terrorists refuse to fight, out of fear of being shot with a pig-grease oiled bullet, the tactic is a useful psychological warfare tool. If there are NO Muslim terrorists who would stop fighting out of fear of pig-grease oiled bullets, obviously the tactic is NOT useful for psychological warfare.

Notice how in the above train of logic the Koran, Allah, and religious teachings are in NO WAY mentioned?

Hence your line of reasoning re: Christians and text in the Bible are totally irrelevant.

-Andrew

I get the practiced beliefs part just fine. I am pointing out that using their religious beliefs against them in the manner proposed by Steve is equivalent to torture.

You do not shoot pork bullets at your enemy because he believes it will earn him a place in hell. Such an approach is barbaric, pure and simple.

You say you would use sugar. Would you also catapult dead pigs into Muslim forces attacking you?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

You do not shoot pork bullets at your enemy because he believes it will earn him a place in hell. Such an approach is barbaric, pure and simple.

Isn't the argument here meant to be that a Muslim faced with the knowledge that they could be killed with a "pork bullet" and holding a belief that touching pork is a sin that could deny them access to heaven will mean they will just flee? I can understand that argument and I don't think the argument is barbaric.

It is however the sort of argument a child comes up with when they first learn about the "funny stuff" other people believe in. It's the equivalent of saying "I can hit any Christian and they won't hit me back because they have to do what Jesus said and 'turn the other cheek'".

You say you would use sugar. Would you also catapult dead pigs into Muslim forces attacking you?

I would if I thought it would reduce the danger and risks my forces faced from a Muslim attacking force.

 

[CFLarsen]

Isn't the argument here meant to be that a Muslim faced with the knowledge that they could be killed with a "pork bullet" and holding a belief that touching pork is a sin that could deny them access to heaven will mean they will just flee? I can understand that argument and I don't think the argument is barbaric.

It is barbaric for the exact same reason we don't catapult dead carcasses into crowds, or put heads of killed enemy soldiers on stakes.

It is also immensely naive to think this would not be viewed with disgust by the rest of the (thinking) world.

It is however the sort of argument a child comes up with when they first learn about the "funny stuff" other people believe in. It's the equivalent of saying "I can hit any Christian and they won't hit me back because they have to do what Jesus said and 'turn the other cheek'".

It is more than that: It is adding insult to injury, in a very real sense. Steve doesn't just want to defeat the enemy, he wants to humiliate them as much as possible. Thereby angering not only non-extremist Muslims, but also people who don't think it is wise to humiliate the enemy.

At the risk of invoking Godwin, think of the Weimar republic. That laid the foundation for Hitler. We learned from it, that you defeat your enemy, but you don't humiliate him. Hence, the Marshall Plan and the efforts to get Germany back on track again as a democratic society.

I would if I thought it would reduce the danger and risks my forces faced from a Muslim attacking force.

Would you do it if they were barricaded in a mosque?

 

[Darat]

It is barbaric for the exact same reason we don't catapult dead carcasses into crowds, or put heads of killed enemy soldiers on stakes.

It is also immensely naive to think this would not be viewed with disgust by the rest of the (thinking) world.

"Barbaric" in this sense is a value judgment (since dead bodies are not people) so why not use such tactics if they are effective?

It is more than that: It is adding insult to injury, in a very real sense. Steve doesn't just want to defeat the enemy, he wants to humiliate them as much as possible. Thereby angering not only non-extremist Muslims, but also people who don't think it is wise to humiliate the enemy.

I haven't seen him say that all I've seen him argue is that a Muslim's beliefs could be used to reduce the number of causalities and in principle I'm usually for ideas that can reduce the number of injuries and deaths.

At the risk of invoking Godwin, think of the Weimar republic. That laid the foundation for Hitler. We learned from it, that you defeat your enemy, but you don't humiliate him. Hence, the Marshall Plan and the efforts to get Germany back on track again as a democratic society.

People can recover from being humiliated they can't recover from being killed, if my options were between defeating my enemies by killing them or humiliating them I would chose humiliation.

Would you do it if they were barricaded in a mosque?

Depends on the circumstances however if I assessed the situation and it seemed probable that throwing a pig into a mosque would result in less deaths or injuries then other means of ending a siege I would be for throwing the pig in.

(In the real world as I have said this childish interpretation of the Islamic faith is as about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.)

 

[gumboot]

You do not shoot pork bullets at your enemy because he believes it will earn him a place in hell. Such an approach is barbaric, pure and simple.

Such a quaint notion of warfare you have. If you're shooting bullets at them, you're trying to kill them. What happens to them, or what they think will happen to them, after that is irrelevant. They're dead. So they're not fighting you any more.

As I understand it the purpose is to PREVENT them attacking you. Were it successful you never would get to the point of shooting someone.

As I said:

In the same way, if some Muslim terrorists refuse to fight, out of fear of being shot with a pig-grease oiled bullet, the tactic is a useful psychological warfare tool. If there are NO Muslim terrorists who would stop fighting out of fear of pig-grease oiled bullets, obviously the tactic is NOT useful for psychological warfare.

Notice, it says "refuse to fight". If you're actually firing bullets at them obviously they haven't refused to fight, in which case your psyops tactic has failed.

Of course the real question is WOULD pig-grease oiled bullets cause them to stop fighting? I don't know the answer to that. If it does, well and good. But I suspect it wouldn't work at all, in which case there's no point going to the effort.

You say you would use sugar. Would you also catapult dead pigs into Muslim forces attacking you?

Well that would depend. First, is it legal? I'm really not sure what the Laws of International Armed Conflict have to say about using dead animals as weapons. If it's allowed, and if it would work (I also doubt it would work) then absolutely I'd use it. If it's not allowed, or it won't work, then no, I wouldn't.

Basically, were I in command of a given conflict, I'd allow my forces to use whatever measures were permitted by the laws or war. I'm totally opposed to these PR-motivated Rules of Engagement that restrict soldiers so much it puts their lives at risk. It's war. you're either in, or you're out. No nancying about.

If you're in, you're all the way in. You go in hard, brutal, and fast. Hit the enemy with everything you have and demolish them in short order so you can all go home.

Simple.

Incidentally... does anyone know if The Hague addresses weird weapons like dead animals? I imagine it being something like a scene from The Simpsons...

SOLDIER ONE: Hey! You can't use a dead pig as a weapon. That's against the rules of war!

SOLDIER TWO: Oh rubbish!

SOLDIER ONE: It's true! Look, Article 7, clause 12 "The use of dead porcine mammalia as either a direct contact or projectile weapon is prohibited".

SOLDIER TWO: Well damn. Sorry about that. My bad.

-Andrew

 

[CFLarsen]

"Barbaric" in this sense is a value judgment (since dead bodies are not people) so why not use such tactics if they are effective?

Where would you draw the line? Force feed a Christian during Lent with stuff he isn't supposed to eat? Make a Catholic stomp or defecate on crucifixes?

I haven't seen him say that all I've seen him argue is that a Muslim's beliefs could be used to reduce the number of causalities and in principle I'm usually for ideas that can reduce the number of injuries and deaths.

The question is, at what cost? There would be such an uproar, and not just from Muslims. To do such a thing is extremely short-sighted.

People can recover from being humiliated they can't recover from being killed, if my options were between defeating my enemies by killing them or humiliating them I would chose humiliation.

That's you because you have been brought up in an environment where you don't feud endlessly over generations over insults. A fundamentalist Muslim welcome martyrdom, and he sure doesn't shy away from having endless feuds if he thinks someone in his family has been humiliated.

Depends on the circumstances however if I assessed the situation and it seemed probable that throwing a pig into a mosque would result in less deaths or injuries then other means of ending a siege I would be for throwing the pig in.

(In the real world as I have said this childish interpretation of the Islamic faith is as about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.)

It isn't just the deaths and injuries. It is also the repercussions that would follow. You would create a fertile ground for endless animosity. Think the Middle East.

 

[gumboot]

Where would you draw the line? Force feed a Christian during Lent with stuff he isn't supposed to eat? Make a Catholic stomp or defecate on crucifixes?

The problem with this scenario is, how would you achieve it?

Making the enemy think you're going to shoot him with pig-laden bullets is easy - its simple information. But making the enemy eat or perform certain actions? how does one make the enemy do such things?

I can't think of how that would work. You could only do it with POWs. POWs aren't likely to attack you, because they're locked up without weapons. Thus it all seems irrelevant. And doing stuff like that to POWs is illegal, anyway.

The question is, at what cost? There would be such an uproar, and not just from Muslims. To do such a thing is extremely short-sighted.

And here we have war PR. I don't like war PR. I mean, you're at war with them. That's likely to cause an uproar as it is. No doubt they will INVENT stuff to discredit you anyway (this is called propaganda). So who cares? Should all wars be fought primarily on the question "what will people think of me?"

I wonder how far WW2 would have succeeded with that logic.

"No, no, let's not bomb Germany, we don't want to upset the German civilians".
"Right lads, we're going to invade France now, but no bombers or rockets okay? We don't want to mess up the place and offend the locals."

It isn't just the deaths and injuries. It is also the repercussions that would follow. You would create a fertile ground for endless animosity. Think the Middle East.

Well if you WIN it shouldn't. The problem is when you don't win. But who fights a war to lose?

The reason there is ongoing animosity in the Middle East is because no one has really ever "won". If Israel had completely annihilated Palestine, taken it over, and established Israel across the entire area, by now the Arab states would have forgotten about it. Likewise, if the Arab states had beaten Israel in 1948 Britain and the US would never have cared, and got involved.

It is a problem because it isn't won or lost yet.

Look at Korea and Vietnam. Very similar scenarios. US cares about South Korea, doesn't care about Vietnam. Why? Vietnam is finished. Someone won, and someone lost. Korea isn't finished, and no one has yet won or lost.

-Andrew

 

[Darat]

Where would you draw the line? Force feed a Christian during Lent with stuff he isn't supposed to eat? Make a Catholic stomp or defecate on crucifixes?

You are asking about quite different situations now so for me different principles come into play.

The question is, at what cost? There would be such an uproar, and not just from Muslims. To do such a thing is extremely short-sighted.

Again if the choice was to save lives or have to deal with an uproar after saving the lives I would choose to save the lives.

That's you because you have been brought up in an environment where you don't feud endlessly over generations over insults.

Not true, the behaviour you mention is just part of human behaviour - it exists anywhere humans create societies.

A fundamentalist Muslim welcome martyrdom, and he sure doesn't shy away from having endless feuds if he thinks someone in his family has been humiliated.

It isn't just the deaths and injuries. It is also the repercussions that would follow. You would create a fertile ground for endless animosity. Think the Middle East.

Do I take it then that your view is that if the choice is between killing or humiliating someone it is better to kill them?

 

[CFLarsen]

Such a quaint notion of warfare you have. If you're shooting bullets at them, you're trying to kill them. What happens to them, or what they think will happen to them, after that is irrelevant. They're dead. So they're not fighting you any more.

As I understand it the purpose is to PREVENT them attacking you. Were it successful you never would get to the point of shooting someone.

It isn't just the people you kill, it is also what you do to them, as well as what people think of that. Remember the US soldier that was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu? Was that an acceptable method to scare off the enemy (US) to you? The soldier was dead, so he wouldn't mind, would he?

Notice, it says "refuse to fight". If you're actually firing bullets at them obviously they haven't refused to fight, in which case your psyops tactic has failed.

Of course the real question is WOULD pig-grease oiled bullets cause them to stop fighting? I don't know the answer to that. If it does, well and good. But I suspect it wouldn't work at all, in which case there's no point going to the effort.

Very true. If you have to fire the bullets in the first place, the method doesn't work at all.

Well that would depend. First, is it legal? I'm really not sure what the Laws of International Armed Conflict have to say about using dead animals as weapons. If it's allowed, and if it would work (I also doubt it would work) then absolutely I'd use it. If it's not allowed, or it won't work, then no, I wouldn't.

It isn't just a question of it being legal, it is also very much a question of image. Even though the US has been fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan (and the Rooskies before that), you didn't see either throw pigs at the Taliban, did you?

You don't win a war merely by killing your enemy. You also have to win the peace.

Incidentally... does anyone know if The Hague addresses weird weapons like dead animals? I imagine it being something like a scene from The Simpsons...

Steve's suggestion is a clear violation of the Haag Convention:

In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden - (...)

To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
The Hague Convention Section II, Chapter I, Art. 23

 

[CFLarsen]

You are asking about quite different situations now so for me different principles come into play.

How are they different principles? In both cases, you are using what the religious person fears to win over him.

Again if the choice was to save lives or have to deal with an uproar after saving the lives I would choose to save the lives.

It would certainly depend on how many lives you would save, wouldn't it?

Not true, the behaviour you mention is just part of human behaviour - it exists anywhere humans create societies.

But you don't act out on it, do you? You probably have lost some family member during one of the many wars of Great Britain - do you bear a grudge against the Germans? Of course you don't.

Do I take it then that your view is that if the choice is between killing or humiliating someone it is better to kill them?

I am saying that you have to consider how you are going to kill them. There are rules of war to follow for the same reason.

 

[gumboot]

It isn't just the people you kill, it is also what you do to them, as well as what people think of that. Remember the US soldier that was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu? Was that an acceptable method to scare off the enemy (US) to you? The soldier was dead, so he wouldn't mind, would he?

No, but their actions are illegal. It is illegal to desecrate the bodies of enemies, or photograph bodies/POWs for the purposes of propaganda.

It isn't just a question of it being legal, it is also very much a question of image. Even though the US has been fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan (and the Rooskies before that), you didn't see either throw pigs at the Taliban, did you?

No, but they HAVE used psyops tactics designed specifically to insult the enemy. In this instance it was to incite the enemy to attack them in the open, where coalition troops have an advantage. As I said. All this is not new. It has been a fundamental part of warfare for a very long time.

Notice how you have to respect the beliefs and customs of POWs, but not enemy who are still engaged in combat.

You don't win a war merely by killing your enemy. You also have to win the peace.

Of course, any tactic has to be weighed. Sometimes a given action is justified, sometimes not. The US, for example, felt dropping two atomic bombs on Japanese cities was justified.

Steve's suggestion is a clear violation of the Haag Convention:

I really don't think there's anything "clear" about it at all. I think you'd have a hard time proving that employing the use of a dead animal was "calculated to cause unnecessary suffering". Article 23 is in reference to things like hollow point bullets (as per Decl. III of the 1899 Convention), or other such technologies designed specifically to cause excessive injury.

Given that the primary objective of the measures suggested is to PREVENT conflict, it would be even harder to argue such an act as a breach of Article 23.

Incidentally, it appears New Zealand is not a signatory to the Hague (probably because we did not become independent until 1947). Theoretically that means we don't have to follow it... :S

-Andrew

 

[Darat]

How are they different principles? In both cases, you are using what the religious person fears to win over him.

The principles I have regarding what you can do to a person are very different to what you can do to a dead body.

It would certainly depend on how many lives you would save, wouldn't it?

It could depend on a lot of things, the world is shades of grey not black and white.

But you don't act out on it, do you? You probably have lost some family member during one of the many wars of Great Britain - do you bear a grudge against the Germans? Of course you don't.

Which is the same for the vast majority of people who also happen to be Muslims.

I am saying that you have to consider how you are going to kill them. There are rules of war to follow for the same reason.

Again it all depends on a myriad of factors. However I can say as a principle if the choice is between humiliation or killing I would rather humiliate someone attacking me.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, but their actions are illegal. It is illegal to desecrate the bodies of enemies, or photograph bodies/POWs for the purposes of propaganda.

That goes for living enemies as well.

No, but they HAVE used psyops tactics designed specifically to insult the enemy. In this instance it was to incite the enemy to attack them in the open, where coalition troops have an advantage. As I said. All this is not new. It has been a fundamental part of warfare for a very long time.

There's a difference between inciting the enemy to attack out in the open and throw dead pigs at them.

Notice how you have to respect the beliefs and customs of POWs, but not enemy who are still engaged in combat.

Not quite. You are not allowed to destroy churches or holy places.

Of course, any tactic has to be weighed. Sometimes a given action is justified, sometimes not. The US, for example, felt dropping two atomic bombs on Japanese cities was justified.

But did they commit atrocities against the Japanese designed to insult them? Did they hang the Emperor from his testicles from the nearest lamp post?

I really don't think there's anything "clear" about it at all. I think you'd have a hard time proving that employing the use of a dead animal was "calculated to cause unnecessary suffering". Article 23 is in reference to things like hollow point bullets (as per Decl. III of the 1899 Convention), or other such technologies designed specifically to cause excessive injury.

That's the whole idea of using dead pigs: To cause unnecessary suffering.

Given that the primary objective of the measures suggested is to PREVENT conflict, it would be even harder to argue such an act as a breach of Article 23.

No, Article 23 is in the section that deals with an ongoing conflict.

Incidentally, it appears New Zealand is not a signatory to the Hague (probably because we did not become independent until 1947). Theoretically that means we don't have to follow it... :S

What do you think will happen if you don't?

 

[CFLarsen]

The principles I have regarding what you can do to a person are very different to what you can do to a dead body.

But in the case of throwing a dead pig at Muslims, the Muslims are also alive.

It could depend on a lot of things, the world is shades of grey not black and white.

Absolutely. But we nevertheless have rules of war, rules of engagement.

Which is the same for the vast majority of people who also happen to be Muslims.

Sure - but there's more than enough Muslims who will seek revenge for many generations to come, for this to become a problem.

 

[Darat]

That goes for living enemies as well.
There's a difference between inciting the enemy to attack out in the open and throw dead pigs at them.

Perhaps you entice them out into the open by throwing dead pigs into where they are hiding.... ?

Not quite. You are not allowed to destroy churches or holy places.

Which belongs back in the days of Quasimodo swinging from the bells and shouting "Sanctuary! Sanctuary!"

...snip...

That's the whole idea of using dead pigs: To cause unnecessary suffering.

Not as it's been put forward in this thread - the idea of using dead pigs is to reduce the suffering i.e. so that you won't need to kill people.

 

[Darat]

But in the case of throwing a dead pig at Muslims, the Muslims are also alive.

And therefore is covered by what I have previously stated: "... I can say as a principle if the choice is between humiliation or killing I would rather humiliate someone attacking me.

...snip...

Sure - but there's more than enough Muslims who will seek revenge for many generations to come, for this to become a problem.

Well that is speculation about a small group of people's reaction to one particular result of what to begin with was a very dubious hypothetical action, if it ever looks like it's something that even needs to be considered I'll give it some thought.

 

[gumboot]

That goes for living enemies as well.

It doesn't, actually. Although I'm not sure how you could "desecrate" an enemy combatant who was still engaged in combat. You'd probably find while you were desecrating him that he shot you...

There's a difference between inciting the enemy to attack out in the open and throw dead pigs at them.

The objective in both cases is to insult them, isn't it?

Not quite. You are not allowed to destroy churches or holy places.

No. Because they're classified as "Cultural objects" (identified with a shield shape with a pattern of a blue triangle above a blue diamond, filled in with two white triangles at the side). Museums and monuments are likewise protect. As are anything relating to Civil Defence (blue triange inside an orange square), Medical Services, or religious personnel (marked by a red cross on white, or a red crescent on white). Also white flags of truce, the United Nations, and dams, dykes, or nuclear power plants (three orange circles).

But did they commit atrocities against the Japanese designed to insult them?

But according to you the objective is not to insult the enemy. Are you saying the Japanese were not insulted by being nuked? I would be. In fact, as I understand it, the Japanese were insulted by being beaten. Worrying about insulting the enemy seems ridiculous.

That's the whole idea of using dead pigs: To cause unnecessary suffering.

No, I really don't think it is. I think the purpose is to prevent the enemy attacking you.

What do you think will happen if you don't?

Well, either way, it's written into the "Code of Conduct for Armed Forces Personnel of the New Zealand Defence Force" anyway so we have to regardless...

And in answer to your question, you would get in a lot of trouble, usually...

(Having said that two New Zealanders during World War Two received Victoria Crosses for actions that were in violation of the Hague Conventions...)

-Andrew

 

[CFLarsen]

It doesn't, actually. Although I'm not sure how you could "desecrate" an enemy combatant who was still engaged in combat. You'd probably find while you were desecrating him that he shot you...

Perhaps. But there are also rules to how you can fight your living enemy.

The objective in both cases is to insult them, isn't it?

No.

No. Because they're classified as "Cultural objects" (identified with a shield shape with a pattern of a blue triangle above a blue diamond, filled in with two white triangles at the side). Museums and monuments are likewise protect. As are anything relating to Civil Defence (blue triange inside an orange square), Medical Services, or religious personnel (marked by a red cross on white, or a red crescent on white). Also white flags of truce, the United Nations, and dams, dykes, or nuclear power plants (three orange circles).

There you go.

But according to you the objective is not to insult the enemy. Are you saying the Japanese were not insulted by being nuked? I would be. In fact, as I understand it, the Japanese were insulted by being beaten. Worrying about insulting the enemy seems ridiculous.

But the Japanese were fought not because they were Japanese, but because of what they had done. Likewise, you don't fight Muslim terrorists because they are Muslims, but because of what they have done.

No, I really don't think it is. I think the purpose is to prevent the enemy attacking you.

By causing unnecessary suffering.

Well, either way, it's written into the "Code of Conduct for Armed Forces Personnel of the New Zealand Defence Force" anyway so we have to regardless...

And in answer to your question, you would get in a lot of trouble, usually...

(Having said that two New Zealanders during World War Two received Victoria Crosses for actions that were in violation of the Hague Conventions...)

Yes, you would. And why? Because the rest of the world would not accept it, regardless of whether NZ had signed the treaty or not.

 

[gumboot]

Perhaps. But there are also rules to how you can fight your living enemy.

None of which state you have to respect their beliefs and customs...

No.

Well, you're right in that, actually, only one tactic is intended to insult.

The objective of the troops in Afghanistan was to insult the enemy so much that they became outraged and immediately attacked, revealing themselves.

In the hypothetical instance the objective is to make the enemy so afraid of being condemned that they throw down their weapons and run away.

Now. The bonus question. In which of these examples are the perpetrators trying to insult the enemy?

There you go.

Technically the places of worship are protected because of their cultural significance, not their religious significance.

But the Japanese were fought not because they were Japanese, but because of what they had done. Likewise, you don't fight Muslim terrorists because they are Muslims, but because of what they have done.

First, no, the Japanese were fought because they were a threat to US interests, just as Terrorist are fought because they are a threat to world peace (as per UN Charter).

Secondly...how does this relate?

By causing unnecessary suffering.

Call me stupid, but how does being hit with a dead animal equate to "unnecessary suffering", as opposed to, say, being hit with a 1000lb bomb?

Yes, you would. And why? Because the rest of the world would not accept it, regardless of whether NZ had signed the treaty or not.

You sure?

The provisions contained in the Regulations referred to in Article 1, as well as in the present Convention, do not apply except between Contracting Powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.

-Hague IV, Article 2
Hague Conference, 1907

They would have to accept it, because it is international law.

-Andrew

 

[CFLarsen]

Now. The bonus question. In which of these examples are the perpetrators trying to insult the enemy?

Insult with what? Yelling "Yo Momma Is Good In Bed!" may drive out the enemy (or not!), but that's a far cry from throwing pigs on them.

Technically the places of worship are protected because of their cultural significance, not their religious significance.

Rubbish. You can't distinguish between the two when it comes to churches.

First, no, the Japanese were fought because they were a threat to US interests, just as Terrorist are fought because they are a threat to world peace (as per UN Charter).

Secondly...how does this relate?

If you are using methods that Muslims in general abhor, then you are not just fighting the terrorists. You are fighting what Muslims in general believe in.

Call me stupid, but how does being hit with a dead animal equate to "unnecessary suffering", as opposed to, say, being hit with a 1000lb bomb?

A dead animal which your religion considers unclean. You are fighting the religion instead of the enemy.

You sure?

Oh, yeah. Just think of what happened at Haditha recently. A clear violation of the rules of war, which resulted in overall condemnation.

They would have to accept it, because it is international law.

There you go.