mike Williamson wrote:
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.

As the gentleman was making his in the context of openly recognizable I made
the obvious observation. In a previous post, from which he made the selective
quotes you read, I suggested a red poppy in the lapel as the open insignia. The
two generic points as you have made them are so the members can identify each
other and so they do not pretend to be civilians.

The general issue here is the Israel issue and a type of warfare not envisioned
by the convention. The point is to damn Palestinians and hold Israelis blameless.

If anything was envisioned it was that the occupying military would always be
in uniform unless in safe areas away from the front for R&R. The convention
makes no distinction between on or off duty so clearly attacks on R&R areas are
lawful. It did not imagine R&R areas as civilian areas of the occupying power a
days walk from the lines.

Another thing it failed to address was active or reserve military. If they can
be recalled to active duty they would appear to be lawful targets. And given
universal military service in Israel even with all the caveats and exceptions 3
in 10 in any crowd should be lawful targets.

The third point is while military assets are lawful targets it was not
envisioned that buses would be used by the military. But in Israel the buses are
military assets moving troops back and forth to the occupied territory and
therefore they are lawful targets. They are just as lawful as any train in
Germany regardless of civilians using them.

Those are my three points. The effort of izziehuggers are to damn Palestinians
for lawful, reasonable and moral attacks on the occupying forces.

I can go further and say taking the fight to the homeland of the occupying
force is also legitimate looking at the saturation bombings of civilians not
only during WWII but since the conventions without any serious issue of
attacking civilians being claimed. I can go as recently as the conquest of Iraq
where civilian assets were the first thing attacked on the grounds the military
could benefit from them.

As a sidebar I notice Israel's present response to the capture a corporal
certainly exonerates Germany for Krystalnacht which was over the murder of an
ambassador. Military people know they risk capture. Ambassadors do not assume
the job hazard of being murdered.

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.

That is not the question he asked. He asked of the insignia was selectively
worn. I said I do not know and directed him to the only source of such
imformation I can imagine. Given the way they almost immediately announce the
militia affiliation of the bomber I would guess they find the insignia in the
wreckage but I do not know.

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.

So in the Zionist/Palestinian case the issue boils down to a lawful delivery
method of a weapon to target the homeland of the invading country. If a dumb
missile is lawful is not a human lawful? In neither case is identification a
requirement as "missle coming" is not a required warning. If a smart bomb can be
dropped on Gaza City cannot a bomb be one walked into Tel Aviv?

Technology changes but one cannot automatically assume technological advances
trump equally effective means of responding in kind.

--
No democracy has the right to keep secret facts which could materially
affect any election.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3646
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10