Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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

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.

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

mike Williamson wrote:

I also recommend to your attention the posts of aspqrz in this matter.

--
No matter what you think of Izziehuggers being behind the conquest of Iraq
it is the least incredible of all the possible reasons.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3657
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
book review http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/wi...utioners.phtml a7

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 07:16:33 GMT, 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.

Sorry, no.

The rule (Geneva III [1949]) is in six parts.

The relevant ones are ...

(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,
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; (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.

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.

=====

(1) and (3) are NOT subject to the rules in (2). That is why there are
separate numbered points. Read the commentaries on the treaty on the
ICRC website (International Committee for the Red Cross) in its IHL
(International Humanitarian Law) section ... the commentaries are
those of the actual treaty negotiations and what the negotiating
powers said they meant and why they worded them the way they did.

One of the specific things that they say is that those forces in (1)
and (3) are NOT subject to the rules of (2), and, of course, those who
could be lumped in (6) are subject to only two rules.

Also note that the use of a Ruse du Guerre is allowed ... which would
mean, for example, that you can conceal your uniform (which could be,
as noted, a Red Armband over ordinary civilian clothes) and weapon
*until the moment of combat" and then reveal both. That is
specifically allowable. US Special Forces do it all the time! Or are
you arguing that *they* are terrorists?

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?

See the actual rules, rather than your interesting, but incorrect,
claims as to what the rules are.

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.

Sadly, you are wrong ... completely, totally, and absolutely. 100%
wrong.

GC III (1949) does NOT define what might, or might not, be a lawful
weapon or not.

GC III (1949) deals ONLY and ENTIRELY with what is a POW and how POWs
are to be treated.

Hague IV (1907) is the core of the Law of Land Warfare, modified by a
few extra, additional, treaties ...

* Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and
Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on
Their Destruction (1972)

.... Article 23 of Hague IV (1907) is the one you want ...

"Art. 23.

In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is
especially forbidden -

* To employ poison or poisoned weapons;

* To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile
nation or army;

* To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having
no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

* To declare that no quarter will be given;

* To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause
unnecessary suffering;

* To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of
the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the
distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

* To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or
seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

* To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law
the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A
belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the
hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against
their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service
before the commencement of the war."

Examples of what "treachery" and "perfidy" include are not helpful ...
however the rules regarding Merchant Raiders as applicable in WW1 and
WW2 are indicative ... the converted merchantmen were allowed,
legally, to fly a false flag and conceal their weapons until they were
close enough to perform a devastating surprise attack TILL THE MOMENT
BEFORE THEY ATTACKED ... as long as they then raised their national
flag or naval ensign they were legal.

The Bombardment rules applying to the WW2 Strategic Bombardment of
Germany and Japan, making them legal, are based on the principles
defined and detailed in Hague IX (1907): Bombardment by Naval Forces
in Time of War, so the Naval rules on Raiders would, likewise, be
applicable to and indicative of what enemy soldiers could do.

Then, of course, there is the rule on Spies.

Hague IV (1907), as defined in US Armed Forces Manual 27-10 states ...

"c. Immunity on Rejoining Own Army: A spy who, after rejoining the
army to which he belongs, is subsequently captured by the enemy, is
treated as a POW, and incurs no responsibility for his previous acts
of espionage (HR Article 31)"

Which is also indicative. If you could take the guy while still
wearing civilian clothing, then, possibly, he could be spy ... but
once he takes it off ... well, the argument would be that he has
"rejoined the army ..."

Ain't law wonderful? grin

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.

Note that this only applies to "Members of *OTHER* militias and
*OTHER* volunteer corps" ... it does NOT apply to ...

(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.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a
government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

They can hide the fact that they are carrying a weapon.

And note that it nowehere mentions "RIFLE" as the original poster
pointed out.

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?

Are you man enough to admit that GC III (1949) doesn't have anything
to do with ruling what weapons are lawful, and only Hague IV (1907)
and the 1972/75 codicil on chemical and bioweapons do?

I seriously doubt it.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: