If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:
On 3 Jul 2006 02:51:02 -0700, "Jordan"
wrote: wrote: On 2 Jul 2006 20:44:34 -0700, "Jordan" wrote: No, it's a reference to Lyn David Thomas' hilarious argument a long time ago in a "Plagues" scenario that survivors of a global plague couldn't get goods by looting abandoned cities because the feral dogs would keep them out. When we pointed out to him that even small groups of humans could easily fight off virtually any number of feral dogs by shooting a few and scaring the rest with the gunfire, Lyn then tried to argue that in most countries the survivors would be unable to get their hands on guns to do this. He forgot, of course, about the military and police arsenals. Lyn's reasoning got really amusing when this was pointed out to him. "reasoning"? Well, IIRC Lyn's first argument was that the weapons would no longer be available because most of the police and soldiers would be dead. When I pointed out to him that dropped weapons rarely commit suicide in grief for the deaths of their owners, he then decided that unspecified people would grab all the weapons and refuse to trade any of them for anything anyone else could offer. They apparently also would refuse to kill the feral dogs with them. Gave me images of a more martial Scrooge McDuck building a "rifle bin" and going swimming in them ... It was *sarcasm*, Jordan! Phil Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Email: |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 09:06:59 GMT, 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. Sadly, again, you are quite wrong ... GC III DID define the term in the discussions and negotiations that led up to the signing. Those are available online at the ICRC website ... http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590007?OpenDocument "[p.61] ' (c) that of carrying arms openly: ' although the difference may seem slight, there must be no confusion between carrying arms "openly" and carrying them "visibly" or "ostensibly". Surprise is a factor in any war operation, whether or not involving regular troops. This provision is intended to guarantee the loyalty of the fighting, it is not an attempt to prescribe that a hand-grenade or a revolver must be carried at belt or shoulder rather than in a pocket or under a coat. The enemy must be able to recognize partisans as combatants in the same way as members of regular armed forces, whatever their weapons. Thus, a civilian could not enter a military post on a false pretext and then open fire, having taken unfair advantage of his adversaries." Note that this rule ONLY applies to combatants in Group #2, not those under category #1 or #3, regular armed forces even those not recognised by one of the parties. Note that NONE of the requirements of the rules applicable to Group #2 apply to those members of the regular armed forces. NONE of them. Again, the commentaries make it clear that this is what the signatories agreed to and what they meant. 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. Wrong again. There are six categories ... (straight from GC III [1949]) ... 1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, incuding those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model. (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. ===== Note especially group #4 and #6. 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. Actually, you could *if* you were wearing some sign that indicated that you were not a civilian. "Uniform" doesn't have to be recognised by the enemy ... a red armband such as the KLA wore would be applicable. "This provision is intended to guarantee the loyalty of the fighting, it is not an attempt to prescribe that a hand-grenade or a revolver must be carried at belt or shoulder rather than in a pocket or under a coat." From the commentaries above. Note that, yes, if ALL they were wearing were civilian clothes, you would be right ... but if they were wearing, say, a Taliban badge, that would probably qualify as a "uniform" And, of course, if they are in Group #6 they do NOT have to wear a uniform at all ... in fact, they *could* carry a grenade in their pocket under certain circumstances! 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. Which, as we have seen, does NOT mean what you claim it does. 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. Wrong again. From the commentaries noted above ... "The International Committee of the Red Cross was anxious that the matter should be regulated as satisfactorily as possible and had gone so far as to propose to the Conference of Government Experts that the nature of the sign should be specified in a conventional text, as well as its size and the manner in which it should be worn (for instance, a green arm-band with national emblem, 10 cm. wide, worn on the left arm). The matter might be settled by a special agreement under Article 6 . THIS SUGGESTION WAS NOT ADOPTED, HOWEVER. Consequently, the term "recognizable at a distance" is open to interpretation. In our view [i.e. that of the ICRC], "the distinctive sign should be recognizable by a person at a distance not too great to permit a uniform to be recognized". Such a sign need not necessarily be an arm-band. It may be a cap (although this may frequently be taken off and does not seem fully adequate), a coat, a shirt, an emblem or a coloured sign worn on the chest. If the partisans are on board a vehicle or an engine of war, tank, aeroplane or boat, the distinctive sign must of course be shown on the vehicle concerned. This is in line with the long-established regulations of international law regarding the flag in the case of war at sea. Lastly, there is no requirement that the distinctive sign must be notified, as several delegations to the 1949 Diplomatic Conference would have wished. It is nevertheless open to the interested parties to make such a notification through the International Committee, in the same way as the Committee offered its services in its Memorandum of August 17, 1944, referred to above (34). Such a notification may also be made through the Protecting Power of the Party to the conflict to which the resistance organization is affiliated. Titles and ranks may also be communicated in this way, as provided in Article 43" It would actually be nice if you had done some actual research beyond the most superficial. 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. See above. 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. Wrong again. Section 6: Levee en Masse. See, I can use caps too. And unlike you, I've actually got a point. Which is wrong. 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? You're like clubbing a baby seal, sure it's satisfying, but it got boring fast. Into the killfile you go. If you killfile people who don't know anything ... are you going to killfile yourself? Obviously your knowledge of the matter is minimal. Phil Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Email: |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:
Matt Giwer wrote:
The night isn't over. But everyone that dies from lack of electricity, water, food, medicine or any other cause related to this siege or the occupation in general has been murdered by Israel. As such deaths are mostly among children and the elderly it is going to be a very unpleasant accounting to Israel's already blood-drenched scorecard. The Israels have permitted the influx of minimal shipments of fuel, water, food and medicine. If they meant to slaughter Gaza City, they would have done it already. Why not apply Ockahm's Razor. Maybe all the Israelis want it the return of Lt. Shalit. Could it be possible? As to group punishment, everytime a Jihadi straps on an explosive belt and blows himself to Paradise in a Pizza Parlor or at a bus stop, that is group punishment. When the Palis do it, you judge it to be just. When Isrealis do targeted assassination of their enemies you express how Shocked! Shocked! you are at Israeli brutality. If the Israelis were truly as brutal and evil as you claim there would be barely a hundred Palestineans left alive, even as we speak. You are a bull**** artist. Bob Kolker |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:
Johnny Bravo wrote:
You've got to be all kinds of stupid to be throwing rocks at people armed with guns. You've got to be just as stupid, if not more so, to allow your kid to be running around throwing rocks at people with guns. Or falling in with fanatics who convince your kid he will go to heaven and get ****ed by 72 virgins if he blows himself and his victims to kingdom come. Palestinean mothers sacrifice their first born sons to the Demon God Jihad. Bob Kolker |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:
Big Red wrote:
I would challenge you to devise a scenario for a nation that contains an aresenal of viable tacitical nuclear missles to be destroyed. Especially one that has can deploy these missles in subs or in secure silos. No viable system has ever been deployed to stop an inbound nuclear missle with 100% accuracy and no stratedgy could made could hope to take out all of an exisisting nuclear power's missles, silos, and submarine based weapons. Finally- nuclear war, involving the destruction of an entire nation, is only a possibility in the minds of the most sociopathic members of the human species. You have made a reasonable argument based on unliklihood. But you have not proved impossibility. All kinds of stupid **** can happen. Bob Kolker |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Jews knew that would be the case when they chose to take over Palestine. Why all the whining? I don't see whining. I see winning. It is the Palestineans and their sympathizers who whine and blubber About The Injustice of It All. Isreali IDF are not whining, they are dealing with their enemies. Whining is useless and irrelevent. The matter is in the Hands of God. We shall see what His Justice decrees. Be patient. Then end will be sooner or later. Whoever wins, is clearly God's favorite or darling. Bob Kolker |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote: As to wearing civilian clothing if camoflague uniforms are ever outlawed it will have everyone back in brightly colored uniforms. I do not see how clothing that helps one blend in can be held unlawful even if it is civilian clothing. In fact that was my first thought when I saw the KLA bandanas, that they should have picked black. Camouflage is still a distinctive uniform. The purpose of a uniform is to distinguish you from non-combatants, not to make you easily visible. Hiding among trees, shrubs, and weeds is legal. Hiding among civilians is not. Your declaration that you can't see a difference (if true) is a statement about your mental process, not about camouflage. The usual is a ninja style "sweatband" of a distinctive color or pattern. Hamas is pure green and Fatah is green with yellow lettering I think. Next time you see films take a look. Should make them easy to spot at checkpoints when they try to smuggle their bombs through. Or do they only wear them when it's convienient to do so for propaganda purposes? I have no idea. You will have to inquire of Israel to get copies of the incident reports. All I know is what I see. If the uniform of the day is a red poppy in the lapel I don't see how to complain. Again, uniform "of the day" intended to prevent the enemy from distinguishing you from the civilian population is (and was always intended to be) illegal under the treaties cited. Since self defence is always allowed troops, mandating a uniform that can not be distinguished from civilian attire requires troops to consider all civilians to be either potential or actual combatants, and act accordingly. Mike W. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:
"Matt Giwer" wrote in message
... Jarg wrote: "Robert Kolker" wrote in message . .. Matt Giwer wrote: Does a nation of war criminals have a right to survive? If they have the might. The U.S. became a great nation by practicing genocide on the aboriginal nations. That is how The West Was Won. Dead Injuns. I think the Israelis should give it all back the day after the U.S. returns the Great Plains to the descendants of the Indians whom our predecessors killed to get the land. When do you think that will happen? Good point. Pretty much every country that exists today was created at someone elses expense, often displacing groups that had previously displaced other groups, and on and on... In addition to my response to him please tell me how this is a good response? Even if the US had no treaties with the Indians how does the comparison to Wounded Knee make Israel look good? These days we cheer for the Indians at Little Big Horn. Why do you think he invites cheering the Palestinians because they are being treated like the Indians? -- Maybe you cheer for the Indians, I just see the inevitable results of a conflict between people's of vastly different resources and technology. Israel's existence is a fact which will not change no matter how much the Palestinians wish otherwise. The sooner they stop their deluded dreaming, the sooner the situation can be resolved. Jarg |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:
Jordan wrote: wrote: Change the date and ethnic group for a fun experience. Pre-World War 2 Germany did try to expel Jews. Were the Jews, as a group, in pre-World War 2 Germany carrying out a murderous terrorist campaign aganst the non-Jewish Germans? I see. You are a proponent of group punsihment. You would punish all for the transgression of some. Another World War 2 parallel. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:
"Matt Giwer" wrote in message
... Treaties are in fact the legal instruments that matter and they are recognized by the tribes which signed them. Do you really want to use treaties as the only basis for sovereignty? Because I would be willing to bet a significant portion of the planet it inhabited by people who took the land from other people without the benefit of any treaty. Jarg |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
No US soldier should have 2 die for Israel 4 oil | Ewe n0 who | Military Aviation | 1 | April 9th 04 11:25 PM |
No US soldier should have 2 die for Israel 4 oil | Ewe n0 who | Naval Aviation | 0 | April 7th 04 07:31 PM |
NO MORE WAR FOR ISRAEL | MORRIS434 | Naval Aviation | 0 | April 4th 04 03:10 PM |
NO MORE WAR FOR ISRAEL | MORRIS434 | Military Aviation | 0 | April 4th 04 03:09 PM |
Israel pays the price for buying only Boeing (and not Airbus) | Tarver Engineering | Military Aviation | 57 | July 8th 03 12:23 AM |