[extropy-chat] Alert for Suspicious Farmers' Almanacs

[Samantha Atkins]

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 12:39:19 -0800 (PST)
Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> --- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> > 
> > You know, I had to laugh at that.  But I think you'll
> > find yourself chuckling too, at least if you like dark
> > humor about serious situations.
> > 
> > Terrorism has a definition.
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism
> > cites Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1998
> > version:
> > 
> > > The act of terrorizing, or state of being
> > > terrorized; a mode of government by terror or
> > > intimidation.
> 
> This is an irrelevant definition. The only important one is that
> defined in the Geneva Conventions:
> 
> a) engaging in acts of violence or threats of violence against
> civilians, while,
> b) not wearing a uniform that distinguishes the combatant from a
> civilian, and/or,
> c) seeking shelter in civilian communities or facilities (except for
> seeking health care in hospitals).
> 

By this definition all militia sans uniforms everywhere are terrorists.  How exactly is this helpful?  For that matter, any organized group of citizens defending their own lives and property against other groups would be terrorists. 

The military of a country threatening the imminent demise of citizens of another country could never be considered terrorist no matter how foul its acts.  

> Similarly civilians or civilian facilities which are used as shelter by
> illegal combatants become legitimate military targets under the GCs.
> 
> The fact that McVeigh didn't wear a recognisable uniform made him an
> illegal combatant, but not a terrorist. Under the Geneva Conventions,
> McVeighs attack on the Murrah Federal Building was only a terrorist act
> in that he purposely set off his bomb when he knew there would be
> children in the day care center. The deaths of all federal agents and
> employees, and the bombing of the building itself, were legitimate acts
> of war. 
> 

> Conversely, the actions of the ATF and FBI against the Davidian
> compound in Waco were terrorism because the ATF initiated violence.
> While Koresh violated unconstitutional laws, he did not preach the
> overthrow of any government, he only predicted what did happen, would
> happen.

But wait, the ATF and FBI did not meet the second or third supposed criteria for being considered terrorist.  They were wearing uniforms and they did not shelter with civilians.

> 
> Israeli attacks on Hamas militants are legitimate acts of war. The
> bulldozing of buildings used for shelter by Palestinian combatants are
> legimitate acts of war, as is the bulldozing of homes paid for with
> bounty money paid for homicide bombings. Such bounties are not normal
> military pay, nor are they legitimate death benefits, they are paid
> specifically for the act of blowing ones self up in an act of terrorism
> against civilians, which is not an act of war. Paying rewards for war
> crimes is itself a war crime, as is accepting such rewards.
>

Whether it is a "legitimate act of war" or not it is not legitimate to destroy entire towns, villages and cities when the people rise up against years of oppression.   The characterization of homes, many of them quite poor, as being paid for with bounty money for suicide bombings, is beneath contempt.  
 
> Now, you may say, "but everything you say seems to give the advantage
> to the more powerful military forces." This is exactly so. This was
> partly the intent of the Geneva Conventions, originally, to maintain
> the eminence of the Powers of the 19th century and help prevent the
> emergence of new powers strictly as a result of military conquest and
> sponsorship of insurgencies. It forced nations to become Powers through
> peaceful economic development, as the United States did in the 1890's,
> as Japan did a few years later.
>

Good.  You admit that the GC is not the arbiter of what is reasonable but is rather, in part, a tool of oppresion. 
 
> The other intent of the GCs was to try to isolate military action from
> civilian action, so that a nation's infrastructure would not be
> destroyed by conflict. This has come under serious attack by the 20th
> century history of Total War and Revolutionary Insurgency. The only way
> to put the genie back in the bottle is to be very severe about the
> enforcement of the Geneva Conventions, demanding nations have strictly
> enforced military codes, and taking to task those nations that do not.
>

The better way to put the genie back into the bottle is to remove much of the oppression and conditions leading to armed conflict in the first place.
 
- samantha