al-Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents and the Geneva Convention - Page 2




 
--
 
January 10th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
but it's the only thing we have even close to setting down acceptable standards of conduct during a conflict.

and with the US not being well know for backing possible solutions to this problem ( see the world court ) what are we to do?
January 10th, 2005  
Anya1982
 
 

Topic: what about this


How about we make the us president grounded for a month? tell him food then bed by 7pm
January 10th, 2005  
KJ
 
 
How about getting the fooking newscrews out of the frontlines and let the proffesionals solve the situation?

I am getting sick and tiered of reading about how sad it is when someone gets locked up and interrogated.
There are no such things as accidents.
If you are found in a AQ dense area with no plausible story to back up why, thatīs what you get..Buh fooking huu.

If you donīt want to be a part of a conflict, get the hell out of dodge before it erupts..
Not like the regular Joes didnīt have ample warning the US were coming to "The Stan".

If they are found to have been fighting in a conflict illegaly, shoot em in the head.
They are NOT protected by the Geneva convention.

That would slow recruitmentnumbers for AQ.

//KJ
--
January 10th, 2005  
CABAL
 
 
The rules of war doesn't apply anymore in Modern Combat if one does not follow the rules.
January 10th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
The Geneva Convention does not apply to Terrorists. They are not combatants in the traditional sense. They are criminals. I also believe that a certain measure of humanity should be used where and if appropriate with them.
January 10th, 2005  
CABAL
 
 
Traditional sense? There is no such thing as "Traditional sense" in terms of combat. There is only the unconventional and the conventional. Or sometimes you need to improvise in case of tough situations. If the enemy knows that the opponent has to follow the rules, which is creating obstacles of achieving an objective, they'll immeditately take that as an advantage. That's what terrorists do. They exploit humans.
January 10th, 2005  
Anya1982
 
 

Topic: i know


Geneive convention states along the lines that if you are to attack a country you are to give substantual warning.

This actually does apply to terroists in the fact that they are supposed to warn. Which most terroist groups had.

I know it sounds stupid
January 10th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabal
Traditional sense? There is no such thing as "Traditional sense" in terms of combat. There is only the unconventional and the conventional. Or sometimes you need to improvise in case of tough situations. If the enemy knows that the opponent has to follow the rules, which is creating obstacles of achieving an objective, they'll immeditately take that as an advantage. That's what terrorists do. They exploit humans.
Traditional Sense. Soliders serving in uniform in a standing military or attached there to. Terrorist Organizations are not Goverments. They do not rate protection under the Geneva Convention.
January 10th, 2005  
Anya1982
 
 

Topic: nope


I'm not saying that terroists are government i am saying that they have rules as standard that they have to follow which were brought from the convention.

That if a country was to pose war on another there would have to be a substansle warning.

If terroists are to bomb etc they are supposed to give warning.

Sounds silly i know but its true
January 10th, 2005  
CABAL
 
 
Quote:
Terrorist Organizations are not Goverments. They do not rate protection under the Geneva Convention.
I certainly agree with you.