scott_harpell

Which one is the fanatic country? I'm confused. They both deserve each other. Nuke each other and create a big ass parking lot for the camels. No more Zionist colonialism, no more Ayatolla Insaney...sounds like a good start.

if there is doubt.... that is the point... I should amend little... to NO doubt.

The leader is required to be accountable for his subordinates... I.E. if they screw up and he knows about it his ass is on the line.

again... that is only for article #4 That is if there is doubt. There is little doubt that someone not wearing a sign and shooting at you is not a journalist OR a protected POW militant.

yes

Geneva Wha!?!?!?!

lawyer

If someone is promising they will bomb someone as soon as they get the weaponry and are building that weaponry, i would call that an imminent danger.

Who is their leader? No, aiming a gun is not a sign. The burden of proof is on them as is stated in the convention even failing one clause means you are ineligible... they have NO sign and NO leader. As for the 4th article... it says the burden of proof is on them and they are required to cary identification as proof they are non-combatants.

Well, if you put it that way, given the current environment of the ME I'd say Israel has nothing to worry about. So no. I don't think they should bomb Iran. But do they have the right?

Who is their commander? What is their sign?

plu as you said they are carrying guns... they cannot claim 4th article if they are carrying guns in a combat zone.

They have to meet all 4 criteria not just one... and to meet the 4th article criteria... they need to be able to prove it... that is why it says they must show identification.

1) They are not ersponsible to any commander 2) They have no fixed sign visible at a distance or within 3 feet for that matter 3) Strapping Bombs to your body is hardly open arms 4) They are violating the customs of war. Really... they have to meet all 4 criteria... but have failed to meet 1 or two at the most.

So what? If you make threats like that to a fanatic country, you are just asking for it...

they fulfil either one or none of these qualifications.

Article 4 A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 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; © That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Read more than the first 2 sentences hommes. note B and D... well actually all 4

nor if they are snipers...

not true bucko... if they are not wearing a uniform they are not allowed to be protected under the geneva convention.

bullshit.

damn yer ugly paul.

squish this weekend... lemme know.

Iain this is the same inane shit your cronies post every day about bush.

syncophant

Hmmm. huh...