Israel makes a huge mistake.

[Az]

hiding inside dense residential areas, from the top of my head. In the not so distant past, 60 years ago, or so, the military could just use artillery in that situation.

[HershOstropoler]

"hiding inside dense residential areas"

Which is the reason why you usually use a SWAT team rather than artillery for that purpose. As I said before, the situation with Gaza is a murky one as it's unclear who controls it.

But would you advocate using artillery against a "guerilla" hiding in residential areas in the westbank that are under Israeli security control?

[Az]

No I wouldn't, obviously. That's why the laws of war exist, to prevent civilian casualties as much as possible. But I don't think that this should give the guerillas an option to hide behind civilians.

Anyway, how would you make a strike against Gaza strip, for example, on land be less bloody than a similar aerial strike?

[Kramerman]

You have to draw the line somewhere. Why not territorial control? When does say an LA gang become a guerilla army in your view?

perhaps when it engages a population using guerilla tatctics That would make sense anyway.

[Kramerman]

im not understanding the difficulty in defining a guerilla force

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
Also, guerilla armies often do not wear uniforms in order blend in with the populace. Does this transform them into the status of spies?

Yes. Duh.

So far, according to you, some guy who straps a bomb to himself, dresses as a civilian and attempts to detonate himself at an Army checkpoint (but fails and is captured) is a POW.

You'd better tell Israel this, as they're therefore holding POWs in conditions contrary to those established by the Geneva Conventions.

[Ned]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Yes. Duh.

So far, according to you, some guy who straps a bomb to himself, dresses as a civilian and attempts to detonate himself at an Army checkpoint (but fails and is captured) is a POW.

You'd better tell Israel this, as they're therefore holding POWs in conditions contrary to those established by the Geneva Conventions.

I was thinking more of the Vietcong, the Taliban or the Bathist resistance in Iraq. These are soldiers who hide among the populace and strike by ambush. If we capture such soldiers, I would hardly execute them for being simple murderers. They are POWs in my book.

However, if the "soldier" is committing a War Crime by attacking civilians, or attempting to do so, they can and should be treated as the criminals they are.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned


I was thinking more of the Vietcong, the Taliban or the Bathist resistance in Iraq. These are soldiers who hide among the populace and strike by ambush. If we capture such soldiers, I would hardly execute them for being simple murderers. They are POWs in my book.

Not in anybody else's. If you catch them in battle and they're not fighting according to the established laws of warfare then a bullet in the head is as much due process as they're entitled to.

The Taliban soldiers are a different case (generally they didn't attempt to blend into the population and continue their resistance that way), plus they were fighting for the de facto government of Afghanistan.

[Saras]

I say it's discrimination of the non-uniformed by the uiformed!