On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 04:22:57 GMT, Johnny Bravo
wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 02:15:49 GMT, Matt Giwer
wrote:
You keep calling them terrorists when they have every right to kill Israelis
and destoy military assets. They have a lawful resistance movement.
The Third Geneva convention has several requirements for a resistence movement
to be "lawful" and thus gain the protection of the conventions. Wear a uniform
or symbol identifiable at a distance, openly carry their arms and conduct "their
Actually, what it says is that "other militias and members of other
volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements"
have to "hav[e] a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance"
(Article 4, Paragraph 2)
Actually, as with Shrub and his sycophants, you have entirely missed
Paragraph 6 ...
"(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."
Which has only two requirements.
operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war" to include not
targeting civilians, using civilians as cover or hiding among civilians.
Hague IV (1907), Chapter 1: Means of Injuring the Enemie, Sieges,
Bombardments, Articles #28 make no such provision.
The relevant provisions are Articles #25-28 ...
Art. 25: The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns,
villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
Art. 26: The officer in command of an attacking force must, before
commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his
power to warn the authorities.
Art. 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken
to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art,
science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and
places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not
being used at the time for military purposes.
It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such
buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be
notified to the enemy beforehand.
Art. 28: The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault,
is prohibited.
.... according to FM 27-10 "The Law of Land Warfare", the US Armed
Forces' take on Hague IV (1907) ...
Page #4 ...
Bombardment of Undefended Places Forbidden: "An undefended place,
within the meaning of Article #25, HR, is any inhabited place near or
in a zone where opposing armed forces are in contact which is open for
occupation by any adverse party without resistance ..."
Which obviously does not apply to the places the Palestinian forces
are bombarding.
However, in case it isn't blindingly obvious, the Manual continues ...
Permissible Objects of Attack or Bombardment: "Attacks against the
Civilian population AS SUCH prohibited [my capitals for emphasis]"
continuing with "Defended Places, which are outside the scope of the
proscription of Article 25, HR, are permissible objects of attacl
(including bombardment) ... " and it further specifies that defended
places include ... "(1) A fort or fortified place. (2) A place that is
occupied by a combatant military force or through which such a force
is passing ... (3) A city or town surrounded by detatched defense
positions, if under the circumstances the city or town can be
considered jointly with such defences as an indivisible whole."
Most of Israel qualifies as one of the above, and those parts that
don't ... well, there's more ...
Military Objectives: "Military objectives - i.e. combatants and those
objects which by their nature, location, purpose, or use make an
effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial
destruction, capture, or neutraliuzation, in the circumstances ruling
at the time, offers a definite military advantage - are permissible
objects of attack (including bombardment). Military objectives include
for example, factories producing munitions and military supplies,
military camps, warehouses storing munitions and military supplies,
ports and railroads being used for the transportation of military
supplies, and other places that are for the accommodation of troops or
the support of military operations ... "
No mention of civilians who might be "collateral damage" ... so the
rest of Israel is, theoretically, covered.
Of course, the reverse is also true ... if (when!) the Israelis target
some Hamas Terrorist leader moving around in his Mercedes then, sadly,
any innocent Palestinian civilians who happen to be killed are
"collateral damage" as well.
It cuts both ways.
Using men wearing civilian clothing to fire mortars into Israeli towns with
You are making a presumption here. How do you know the men were
wearing civilian clothing when *firing* the mortars? And even if they
*were*, if they were wearing a Hamas badge or armband, say, that would
trump the clothing.
As soon as they've *stopped* firing, or as *before* they start,
technically they are simply running a ruse du guerre, which is
*specifically* allowed for under the Hague Convention!
weapons manufactured and stored in refugee camps, using a plan developed by
commanders hiding in the middle of a crowded apartment block fails on all three
counts. That makes them terrorists, not a "resistance movement".
Sadly you are wrong, as the actual conventions and treaties cited
above show.
They are all available online. The Hague Treaty and GC III at the
Avalon Project and ICRC websites. The US Army FM at the ATDL.
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: