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. The convention was not designed to deal with
guerrila warfare. As with many things times have become more complicated.
Grenades were not required to have signs saying GRENADE on them. There is no
prohibition of carrying a weapon in something for easy handling else all truck
and crates would be illegal.

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. That makes Bush a
terrorist in regard to Iran so one has to be more specific than that. And a
guerilla war certainly does not qualify as a terror war.

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.

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.

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. None of them
have ever been given such status or treatment so there is no point to making it
easy on the european invaders. I have yet to hear one Palestinian complaint
about not receiving POW treatment.

In fact Israel has mostly executed POWs even when from the regular armies of
Egypt and Jordan. There is a reason for this but it is still murder. Egypt found
a mass grave of over 9000 of their executed troops but the UN has never seen fit
to do anything about it. And if Egypt were to make an issue of it, the street
would revolt against the government that made peace with Israel.

Explosive belts are a lawful weapon. The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto pioneered
the grenade in the baby carriage trick even when their own baby was in it.

No, it is NOT a lawful weapon under the Third Geneva Convention.

Then the Zionists in Mandate Palestine were terrorists but that has never been
in question.

There is no requirement the weapon be a rifle. Nor is there a requirement to
openly carry it.

You keep saying this as if it were true.

Third Gevena Convention, Article 3, Section 2:

"(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including
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;"

Note MY emphasis.

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.

That is an oversight as it intention was to address regular
military forces until that is corrected concealed weapons are lawful.

There is no oversight, it's read like that since 1949.

Are you man enough to admit that you were wrong?

As above EVEN IF I am wrong it is only required to be able to claim POW status
which none of them have ever gotten nor have ever claimed. Lawful in this case
means only to be subject to the Geneva conventions on POW status. It means
Israel can deal with them as it does without international sanction. Neither
side is complaining.

As to actually being wrong, there is no one claiming this was a requirement for
the Viet Cong is there? Black pajamas are mostly a Hollywood creation and worked
as camouflage. How about al Qaeda against the Russians? British commandos
against the Germans? French and Polish resistance against the Germans? Were they
all terrorists instead of lawful resistance movements? Was not dropping those
concealable single shot .45s into France promoting terrorism? Were they
supposed to be carried openly?

It is not a matter of what makes it lawful. It is matter of what gives them the
right to claim to be protected by the Geneva conventions.

--
If you want to understand Jews, look to the West Bank.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3665
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Larry Shiff http://www.giwersworld.org/computers/newsagent.phtml a8