"Terrorist" is a rather broad term. They come from many different sects and groups and all have different goals. All fight a "war" of attritian. The US will NEVER be a winner in such a war, you do not have the stomach. To win you must fight without regard for your own casualities. The second most difficult type is guerilla warfare... and you are facing both. You would be facing neither if you would simply get the hell out of THEIR countries and not allow them to expand their foreign influences.
You call THEM violent coming off a 100,000 (low estimate) person kill in Iraq ??? Please get some perspective. On 1/23/09, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > When the terrorists stop using suicide bombers, roadside bombs, > rockets aimed at civilian targets, kidnappings + violent deaths, the > USA and Israel can sit down and negotiate- perhaps. > > On Jan 21, 4:06 am, "liberal mike532 !" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > very true which is why the people of the world got together and wrote > > the Geneva convention so that things like what the Jews are doing in > > Gaza don't happen . > > > > On Jan 21, 5:00 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Like Americans killed off the buffalo to starve the Indians? Civilians > > > caught in a war zone are sitting ducks. > > > > > On Jan 21, 1:57 am, "liberal mike532 !" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > are you trying to say the UN has been attacking the Israelis ? > > > > the jews attacked a UN hospital and shelter killing many of the > > > > already wounded civilians . and Gaza is an ocupied teritory under > > > > control of the jews . they have been stopping food and water as well > > > > as medical supplys to the people who live there which is also a war > > > > crime . > > > > On Jan 20, 10:56 am, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Care to cite where it's stated in the Geneva Conventions? > > > > > > > For example, consider the following; > > > > > > > Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in > Time > > > > > of War. > > > > > Art. 19. The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled > shall > > > > > not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their > humanitarian > > > > > duties, acts harmful to the enemy. > > > > > > > Maybe I am interpreting it incorrectly but it sure seems like > Article > > > > > 19 is indicating that civilian hospitals are protected UNLESS they > are > > > > > used by the enemy to promote the fight, in which case you can then > > > > > return fire. And clearly, if it's OK to fire on a hospital if the > > > > > enemy is using it to promote the war, then firing on homes, schools > or > > > > > whatever else must also be OK when these same conditions exist. > > > > > > > I readily admit I am no scholar of the Geneva Conventions so am > open > > > > > to other interpretations. > > > > > > > On Jan 20, 1:15 am, "liberal mike532 !" <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > "…returning fire to an armed opponent using civilian shields is > NOT a > > > > > > war crime." > > > > > > that is indeed a war crime as stated in the Geneva convention > > > > > > > > On Jan 19, 3:58 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Wow, so now you've stooped to taking people out of context! > > > > > > > > > What jgg said was; > > > > > > > > > "…returning fire to an armed opponent using civilian shields is > NOT a > > > > > > > war crime." > > > > > > > > > There's no disagreement that using civilian shields is a war > crime. > > > > > > > But that's not what jgg was talking about and you know it. What > jgg > > > > > > > was referring to was returning fire on an enemy who is using > civilian > > > > > > > shields, and that is not a war crime. > > > > > > > > > On Jan 19, 2:21 pm, "liberal mike532 !" < > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > " using civilian shields is NOT a war crime... " like > fucking hell > > > > > > > > it isn't ! > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 19, 9:27 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > You seek to apply the Geneva Accords. Fine then you are > bound by the > > > > > > > > > standards they use -- that is returning fire to an armed > opponent > > > > > > > > > using civilian shields is NOT a war crime... It also > includes > > > > > > > > > storing weapons or ammunition or bases in civilian > neighborhoods.. > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 19, 5:23 am, "liberal mike532 !" < > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The War Crimes Act of 1996 was passed with overwhelming > majorities by > > > > > > > > > > the United States Congress and signed into law by > President Bill > > > > > > > > > > Clinton. > > > > > > > > > > > > The law defines a war crime to include a "grave breach of > the Geneva > > > > > > > > > > Conventions", specifically noting that "grave breach" > should have the > > > > > > > > > > meaning defined in any convention (related to the laws of > war) to > > > > > > > > > > which the U.S. is a party. The definition of "grave > breach" in some of > > > > > > > > > > the Geneva Conventions have text that extend additional > protections, > > > > > > > > > > but all the Conventions share the following text in > common: "... > > > > > > > > > > committed against persons or property protected by the > Convention: > > > > > > > > > > willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including > biological > > > > > > > > > > experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious > injury to > > > > > > > > > > body or health." > > > > > > > > > > > > The law applies if either the victim or the perpetrator > is a national > > > > > > > > > > of the United States or a member of the U.S. armed > forces. The penalty > > > > > > > > > > may be life imprisonment or death. The death penalty is > only invoked > > > > > > > > > > if the conduct resulted in the death of one or more > victims.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996 > > > > > > > > > > &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& > > > > > > > > > > [edit] Part II. General Protection of Populations Against > Certain > > > > > > > > > > Consequences of War > > > > > > > > > > Article 13. The provisions of Part II cover the whole of > the > > > > > > > > > > populations of the countries in conflict, without any > adverse > > > > > > > > > > distinction based, in particular, on race, nationality, > religion or > > > > > > > > > > political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the > sufferings caused > > > > > > > > > > by war. > > > > > > > > > > > > [edit] Part III. Status and Treatment of Protected > Persons > > > > > > > > > > > > [edit] Section I. Provisions common to the territories of > the parties > > > > > > > > > > to the conflict and to occupied territories > > > > > > > > > > Article 32. A protected person/s shall not have anything > done to them > > > > > > > > > > of such a character as to cause physical suffering or > > > > > > > > > > extermination ... the physical suffering or extermination > of protected > > > > > > > > > > persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only > to murder, > > > > > > > > > > torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or > scientific > > > > > > > > > > experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment' > While popular > > > > > > > > > > debate remains on what constitutes a legal definition of > torture (see > > > > > > > > > > discussion on the Torture page), the ban on corporal > punishment > > > > > > > > > > simplifies the matter; even the most mundane physical > abuse is thereby > > > > > > > > > > forbidden by Article 32, as a precaution against > alternate definitions > > > > > > > > > > of torture. > > > > > > > > > > > > The prohibition on scientific experiments was added, in > part, in > > > > > > > > > > response to experiments by German and Japanese doctors > during World > > > > > > > > > > War II, of whom Josef Mengele was the most infamous. > > > > > > > > > > > > [edit] Collective punishments > > > > > > > > > > Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an > offense he or > > > > > > > > > > she has not personally committed. Collective penalties > and likewise > > > > > > > > > > all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are > prohibited. > > > > > > > > > > Pillage is prohibited. > > > > > > > > > > Reprisals against protected persons and their property > are prohibited. > > > > > > > > > > > > Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments > are a war > > > > > > > > > > crime. By collective punishment, the drafters of the > Geneva > > > > > > > > > > Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World > Wars I and II. > > > > > > > > > > In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian > villagers in mass > > > > > > > > > > retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, > Nazis carried > > > > > > > > > > out a form of collective punishment to suppress > resistance. Entire > > > > > > > > > > villages or towns or districts were held responsible for > any > > > > > > > > > > resistance activity that took place there. The > conventions, to counter > > > > > > > > > > this, reiterated the principle of individual > responsibility. The > > > > > > > > > > International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) > Commentary to the > > > > > > > > > > conventions states that parties to a conflict often would > resort to > > > > > > > > > > "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in > hopes of > > > > > > > > > > preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at > guilty and > > > > > > > > > > innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based > on humanity > > > > > > > > > > and justice." > > > > > > > > > > > > Additional Protocol II of 1977 explicitly forbids > collective > > > > > > > > > > punishment. But as fewer states have ratified this > protocol than GCIV, > > > > > > > > > > GCIV Article 33. is the one more commonly quoted. > > > > > > > > > > > > [edit] Right of return > > > > > > > > > > Article 49. The second paragraph of Article 49 provides > that persons > > > > > > > > > > displaced during armed conflict must be transferred back > to their > > > > > > > > > > homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have > ceased. This > > > > > > > > > > right of displaced persons is often referred to as the > "right of > > > > > > > > > > return" and has been reaffirmed in later international > treaties and > > > > > > > > > > conventions. State Practice also establishes this rule as > a norm of > > > > > > > > > > customary international law, according to the > International Committee > > > > > > > > > > of the Red Cross. > > > > > > > > > > > > [edit] Part IV. Execution of the Convention > > > > > > > > > > This part contains "the formal or diplomatic provisions > which it is > > > > > > > > > > customary to place at the end of an international > Convention to settle > > > > > > > > > > the procedure for bringing it into effect are grouped > together under > > > > > > > > > > this heading (1). They are similar in all four Geneva > Conventions of > > > > > > > > > > 1949."[1] > > > > > > > > > > > > [edit] Annexes > > > > > > > > > > The ICRC commentary on the Forth Geneva convention states > that when > > > > > > > > > > the establishment of hospital and safety zones in > occupied territories > > > > > > > > > > were discussed reference was made to a draft agreement > and it was > > > > > > > > > > agreed to append it > > > > ... > > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- Mark M. Kahle www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
