The insurgents are soldiers too......................

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Cambrai-Kid, Jun 14, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I wonder whether you fellows could help me out...........

    I'm currently engaged in a long running 'debate' (an elastic term under the circumstances) with a liberal halfwit who is advancing the theory that there is a moral equivalency between British soldiers and Islamic insurgents in Iraq (ie: She believes that they are soldiers just as juch as members of the British Army).

    I enclose the text of my provisional response to her preposterous thesis.

    What would you add? What are the definitive charachteristics and legal traits that seperate soldiers from terrorists/paramilitaries?

    Many thanks.

    They are NOT soldiers fighting a war. They do not belong to the armed forces of any recognised country. They do not act on behalf of any recognised state that has declared war on either the United States of America or any of the countries in which they have been detained.

    They do not have the same rights as soldiers for that reason

    Let's pretend that a 19 year old man from St Albans decides to join the British Army. After basic training he joins his regiment which happens to be deploying on a 6 month tour in Basra.
    He is being sent as part of a British Army unit under the authority of the democratically elected government of the United Kingdom who have decided (rightly or wrongly) to commit British forces to Iraq. The British contingent in common with the other members of the multinational coalition are there with the express permission of a democratically elected Iraqi government and are operating by this stage under a United Nations mandate.

    Meanwhile in Manchester another 19 year old is making plans to go to Iraq too. This man is a Muslim, increasingly disenchanted with life in the UK, finding the core tenets of his faith incompatible with what he perceives as the decadent ways of a secular country he has sought solace in his religion. Over recent years he has come to subscribe to a radical version of Islam, infuriated by US and British foreign policy he decides to travel to Jordan and make his way from there to Iraq where he plans to join a Sunni insurgent group. His dearest wish is to kill as many Western soldiers as possible and help to make Iraq ungovernable. He has not been invited in by the Iraqi government, the Iraqi people do not want foreign insurgents compounding their problems with indiscriminate attacks that invariably kill more civilians than military personnel. More than anything else they resent the fact that these foreign Jihadists have sparked a vicious sectarian war between Sunni, Shia, Kurds and the tiny Christian minority.

    But, he doesn't care about that, he sees Iraq as the frontline in a religious war between the Islamic 'street' and the infidel West.

    Do you honestly believe that he is as much a soldier as the 19 year old private from St Albans?

    If you do, then you really should stopping reading The Guardian..............and using public transport in London.
  2. Ok you are along the right lines, but...

    I agree they are not soldiers, they do not fight for an official figurehead and therefore are not adhering to the Geneva Convention. However, despite the fact that they do not adhere to this agreement, we have to.

    Ok so to summarise this young man is a member of the British Army and is in Iraq on duty. You have gone wrong on the details as:

    Coalition forces deployed to Iraq to defend the terms of a UN Mandate not as a result of Tony Blair or George Bush deciding that their country thought it should be done. This is sticky territory but that is what happened. As the UN Mandate in question was a little svelte let's say, successive governments were formed which have each invited the coalition to assist with security hence the reason we are now nice and legal.

    This person is not involved in lawful combat (no organisation, no declaration of war, this is no diffrent to a member of the public opening fire on the street in UK with the intent to cause harm; this person is a criminal).

    It is the Graniud btw...

    Never write it in clear lol...
  3. Not to mention they don’t abide by any set of international laws regarding how warfare should be conducted, which I would say is one of the defining differences between a solider and terrorist.
  4. dam hellfyyr your got there before me

  5. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    While I agree with the soldier v terrorist arguement (to an extent), it has to be borne in mind that the soldiers (i.e. our side) have to respect the abilities of the non-soldiers(their side) or there will be lots of casualties being sent back to Blighty.
  6. Of course they are soldiers, they are soldiers of Allah and the sooner they are sent to him the better!

    The difference is that the British Army, for all it's breaking of pc rules etc. takes prisoners, not hostages. It treats them resonably well under the circumstances and does not behead them on video. Get you friend to type 'iraq hostage beheading' into google and make the silly theorising girl watch what these insurgent 'soldiers' do in the service of Allah, then ask her what she thinks of them.

    Quite frankly, reasoned debate aside, this bint needs slapping and a serveer reality check!
  7. In purely legal terms the multilateral consent of nations to abide by a set of rules is one defining parameter, but I'd hate to try defining them by any moral guideline. In my humble etc the ethics governing Christian or Muslim participation in warfare without a clear and distinct baseline of good old secular survival (and that could encompass capitalist objectives...) is by now thoroughly devalued, and frankly almost worthless (I still have some residual feeling for the Crusader thing, but only because of the swords, horses and King Harry). Those Buddhists know a thing or two, mind, if you don't worry about 'pacifism' too much.
  8. Their "abilities" as you put it are simply that they are able to fight as irregulars and without rules or care for non-combatants, as such they enjoy massive success against those who have to abide by the rules.
  9. Thanks for the replies so far everyone.

    She has attempted a counter strike with the suggestion that the traditional definition of what constitutes a soldier is invalid. She seems to think that the end of traditional warfare between nation states and the rise of asymetrical warfare (not that she knew the proper term) renders it void.

    In apparent contradiction to her earlier rantings she also stated that soldiers must wear a recognised uniform and carry their weapons openly in spite of the fact that those apparent prerequisites would render her argument that insurgents are indeed soldiers invalid.

    She does indead deserve a slap.

    You will be entirely unsuprised to learn that her morally ambiguous view of Islamic insurgents in Iraq also extends to the wooly face gang over the water in NI.

  10. If a foreign country invades England, and the English take to the streets in organised pockets of resistance are are they then classed as defenders or terrorists ? And, if they can be bothered, some Taffs, Jocks and Paddies decide to move in and do a bit of skullduggery against the invaders too, are they then 'insurgents' ? If by chance the invaders find the Prime Minister in a dug out in the Cotswolds and put him in Ford Open for questioning, will we then be freed from tyranny ? If so.............let the invasion begin !
  11. Please, Please, Please get this stupid bitch in front of a PC and get her to do the search and WATCH what these fcukers do, and not to soldiers, but to pensioners, civies, aid workers, lorry drivers.

    God she makes me sick! Try asking her if the Allies should be allowed free rain to use their firepower and wipe out community after community to win the war, bet she won't say, 'oh yes'!!!

    Going outside for a while to bang head on brick wall..... ARGHHHHHHHHH STUPID STUPID STUPID WOMAN!
  12. C-K, I don't think you can win what is, essentially, a semantic argument with someone who's just gotten through her first Media and Society unit and thinks she's really clever.

    Like it or not, the civilian understanding of the terms "soldier," "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" are generally assigned by whatever media is reporting them. There is no practical reference you can use to explain it. And worrying how someone who is set up not to like you or your beliefs would describe your activities is a waste of time.

    The only thing a member of the Armed Forces can do is to personally align themselves with an internationally accepted code of conduct, acknowledge that there are such things as "illegal" orders (such as being ordered to blow up a pub full of civilians) and balance loyalty with good judgment.

    Or someone could just slap her.

    (The Tankie helped me out with the last part, obviously :) he is a career soldier and I was sort of a spin-bunny by profession this is something we discuss a lot.)
  13. They are civilians and not covered by the Geneva convention (except don't target them unless in self-defence).
  14. Yeah, then we could import a french video store worker to chop people's heads off...... you t!t!

    It's a good enalergy I grant you, but this isnt about getting the Allies out, now is it? They'd still be killing each other if they Allies pull out next week and the bloody jonny foreigners amongst their ranks wouldnt toddle of back to Saudi, Yeman, Iran etc etc etc now would they!
  15. Believe me i share your frustration and would like to point out that the lady in question is not someone i consider a friend.
    Some of these bleeding heart liberals are every bit as indoctrinated as committed National Socialists circa 1938, all you can do is point out the contradictions. I just worry that the public in their ignorance are more likely than ever to subscribe to the views held by those of her ilk than the likes of you and i.