Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:00:56 GMT, Matt Giwer
wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 06:31:16 GMT, Matt Giwer
wrote:
They do wear symbols. It is their headgear usually. That it is not readable to
you and me does not change what it is. The KLA wore a red bandanna tied to the
left upper arm. Of course they carry their arms else they would not be a threat.
It is not carry, it is carry openly. Any group who sends troops out in
civilian clothing with bombs strapped to their bodies is a terrorist group by
law.
Again, openly is not defined.

It's a commonly used English word, the Third Geneva convention is not a
dictionary. It doesn't define organized resistance movement either, that
doesn't mean they are talking about a tug of war contest.

It does not work that way. The word used has to translate into all the official
translations in the military sense of the word. Plain english never applies to
military terms. Much less does it apply to what it meant at the time it was
formulated based upon the notes and discussions leading up to the use of that
word for English and other words for other major translations. In fact that time
the primary language from with translations were made was most likely French.

The convention was not designed to deal with guerrila warfare.

"Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including
those of organized resistance movements"

If you are not in one of these groups, you are a terrorist by definition. You
CANNOT claim to be one of these groups if you do not meet the requirements.

Which leaves us with the French and Polish resistance and the Brit commandos as
terrorists. You do not want to go there else you retroactively legitimize the
Nazi response to terrorists.

As with many things times have become more complicated.
Grenades were not required to have signs saying GRENADE on them.

You can't hide them in the pockets of your civilian clothes and claim to be
anything other than a terrorist. That is the letter of the law, which is beyond
your opinion on the matter.

But you are either saying the Jewish women in the Warsaw ghetto were terrorists
for concealing them in baby carriages (with babies) or you are saying they can
be concealed.

There is no prohibition of carrying a weapon in something for easy handling else all truck
and crates would be illegal.

They are if you have that crate in anything but a marked military transport.
See also: Openly.

The military rarely uses open trucks. It rains. As for marked military
transport I don't see mention of military transport.

BTW: There is NO definition of terrorist in any law other than the very weak,
use of force or threat of force to change public policy.

If you're killing people without meeting the Third Geneva Convention standard
you are at BEST a terrorist, at worst you're a psychopath with an uncontrollable
urge to kill. Either category can be shot upon discovery by enemy forces
according to the laws and customs of war.

Or you are a colonial revolutionary but of course that is before its time. I
use it simply as an example opposed to terrorist.

But no one is arguing they cannot be shot if not in compliance. I have not
claimed such a thing.

As to wearing civilian clothing if camoflague uniforms are ever outlawed it
will have everyone back in brightly colored uniforms.

I posted the exact requirement from the Geneva Convention, here it is again
since you seem too stupid to remember it.

"(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;"

You can do what you can to reduce your ability to be seen in the first place
but once you are spotted you have to be CLEARLY identifiable as the enemy.

And then we got into what clearly means identifiable means.

that helps one blend in can be held unlawful even if it is civilian clothing.

Because dressing like a civilian is NOT recognizable at a distance as a
distinctive sign.

Which lead us to consider outlawing camoflague uniforms because the purpose is
not to be clearly identifiable.

In any event I do not see your point in going into this as all of the above and
more is only required TO HAVE A CLAIM to POW status and treatment.

It is required TO HAVE A CLAIM to ORGANIZED RESISTANCE MOVEMENT status.

See, I can use caps too. And unlike you, I've actually got a point.

Your caps mean that the ORGANIZED group can claim POW status. If they are not
claiming that then what is the point?

All resistance to foreign occupation is a priori criminal?

Define openly. An explosive vest requires it to be worn the way it is to be
effective. I do not see how openly can require a weapon to be carried in a
manner to make it ineffective.

So wearing the explosives outside the vest as required would make the blast
ineffective?

That is a good question. It would appear the closer to the body the more
effective. So should they only be used in winter where overcoats would
definitely reduce effectiveness and therefore wearing them under the coat
completely lawful?

You're like clubbing a baby seal,

That is a new term for Zionists.

sure it's satisfying, but it got boring
fast. Into the killfile you go.

Please learn to use you killfile before you threaten it.

But it remains a fact killing Zionists is lawful as they are European invaders
who murdered and expelled the native population and stole the land. It is called
private property. There is always a right to use deadly force to kill thieves
and murderers.

--
There are two kinds of Europeans. Those who accept the holy holocaust and
those who are in prison.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3659
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12