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:

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:

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

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

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

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

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.

"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

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.

"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