If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:
Big Red wrote:
Jordan wrote: .... Ah, but you're assuming that Arab Powers aren't prone to suicidal acts of aggression. Witness the fate of Saddam Hussein's Iraq as a counter-example. How many wars have the Arab powers fought with Israel after the Jewish state developed tacitical nuclear weapons? Even Saddam's invasion was tacitical. Kuwait is just a sheikdom that has some oil. He gambled that the Russians and the Chinese could stop the U.N., and America wouldn't rush into a war without allies. He fatally underestimated how powerful America was, especially what the U.S. could do with a smaller superior force, and command of the sky. However, Saddam's invasion didn't amount to sucide, as he retained power after the war. In fact Bush senior OK'd his invasion of Kuwait. Did you miss that? He tried to hold back world reaction for two months until he lost the PR battle and then rushed to the front so he could lead. You missed all that? In fact to this day the ambassador at the time is still prohibited from speaking about her instructions in the discussion with Hussein in the matter of the invasion. In any event there is no question that Kuwait was in fact slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields and is doing so to this day. Frankly I think it was simply a major miscommunication. The intent was to OK military action to stop the slant drilling and Hussein went to far. But until she is allowed to speak it is not possible to know and one can reasonably assume it was an OK for a full scale invasion for not permitting her to speak of it. 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. Without being too much of a pessimist there is none possible short of successful laser weapons unless the antimissile carries a nuclear warhead. In that case it was doable back in the 50s with Nike Zeus. Most simply the problem is the faster the incoming missile the less effective the defensive missile. The greater the missile range the greater its velocity. Israel does have some US charity capability against short range Scuds. The effectiveness was greatly overplayed during the Gulf war. The current upgrade of Patriot has never had a real life test. -- Can anyone tell me the difference between Iraq with nuclear weapons and Iran with nuclear weapons? The lies all sound the same to me. -- The Iron Webmaster, 3654 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml a4 |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:
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 |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:
On 2 Jul 2006 20:44:34 -0700, "Jordan"
wrote: Matt Giwer wrote: Jordan wrote: Lyn David Thomas wrote: This is off topic for soc.history.what-if as this is present/future not past related. Hey, Lyn, shouldn't you be cowering in your basement in fear of the feral dogs? That is a term for Zionists I have not heard before. Where did you hear it? 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"? Phil Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Email: |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:
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. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:
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: |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:
Matt Giwer wrote: Jordan wrote: Matt Giwer wrote: Dean A. Markley wrote: Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb. How does that act of war improve matters? By demonstrating to the Syrians that when they commit acts of war against Israel through third party clients, Syria will suffer _direct_ retaliation. Resistance to occupation is lawful and not an act of war EVEN IF there were evidence of the implicit assertion that Syria were sponsoring it. Actually, whether or not it is "lawful" (the deliberate murder of civilians is generally NOT "lawful" under any version of the Laws of War), it is most definitely an "act of war." By attempting armed "resistance" in a lost territory, a national government backing this resistance is committing an act of war against the occupier. The war may then resume, and let the dice fall where they may. Given the relative strength of Israel and Syria, I suspect that rather soon Syria will have some _more_ lost territory to complain about. Capturing a prisoner of war from the occupying power is lawful in international law. Yes, _under conditions of WAR_. Of course, if Syria is actively at war with Israel, Syria is violating the truce that ended Peace For Galilee, and Israel would now be within her rights to also carry out warlike operations against Syria. Their only obligation is to allow Red Cross visits along with proper treatment in accordance with his rank. Have such Red Cross visits been allowed? Even if Syria or Iran were sponsoring it it would be no different from French support of American colonies Um, Matt, that support _was_ an act of war, and it led to the escalation of the American Revolutionary War into a world war involving America, England, France, Holland and Spain. I direct you to Tuchman, Barbara, _The First Salute_ for some of the details; there are many other diplomatic and military histories of the 1770's-1780's. or Czech support of Zionists by sending arms to let Stalin pretend innocense. Yes, that too was an act of war (against Britain as the occupying Power). What you're not getting about an "act of war" is that the victim doesn't have to choose to treat the situation as a war. And often doesn't. Israel seems to be finally losing all patience with the Palestinians and with Syria, which if true I am very heartily glad to see. The radical Arabs need another good bitch-slapping to remind them of their place in the balance-of-power food chain, IMHO. Resistance to occupation is always lawful by any means available. And that is specifically because it was approved against the Nazis in WWII. Yes, in time of WAR. What are you not getting about the fact that, when Britain and Russia supported armed resistance against the Nazis, it was in the context of a WAR? Let the *******s _bleed_ like they made Lebanon bleed. The Druze SLA army that Israel financed to start the civil war in Lebanon (with the hope of establishing a friendly Christian government) was the one which asked Syria to intervene to save their butts. As the SLA was an Israeli puppet we rationally assume that request was made with the approval of Israel. Israel tried to abandon their puppets but public opinion forced the government not only to give them residence but citizenship if they requested it. I think you're forgetting a _lot_ of history here, specifically involving the PLO and the later Syrian occupation of Lebanon. Sincerely Yours, Jordan |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:
Matt Giwer wrote: He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a sniper. He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his way to becoming a role model. So he was murdered in cold blood. Seems to me that when someone chooses to be a combatant in a war, one cannot complain if one's chosen enemy decides to shoot back at you -- whether immediately or a bit later. Sniping at enemy combatants is quite legal under any version of the Laws of War. Sincerely Yours, Jordan |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:
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: |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
No US soldier should have 2 die for Israel 4 oil | Ewe n0 who | Military Aviation | 1 | April 9th 04 11:25 PM |
No US soldier should have 2 die for Israel 4 oil | Ewe n0 who | Naval Aviation | 0 | April 7th 04 07:31 PM |
NO MORE WAR FOR ISRAEL | MORRIS434 | Naval Aviation | 0 | April 4th 04 03:10 PM |
NO MORE WAR FOR ISRAEL | MORRIS434 | Military Aviation | 0 | April 4th 04 03:09 PM |
Israel pays the price for buying only Boeing (and not Airbus) | Tarver Engineering | Military Aviation | 57 | July 8th 03 12:23 AM |