SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Michael Watkins who wrote (148847)10/24/2004 1:21:05 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
I don't expect any pro-Bush folks to reply to your post because they see nothing wrong with contravening Geneva conventions.


Al Qaeda agreed to Geneva Conventions? Really? When?

The Geneva Conventions were designed to be used by BOTH sides in a conflict. Had you forgotten that?

There are certain requirements to qualify as a POW under the Fourth Geneva Convention. They include wearing a uniform and avoiding deliberate attacks on pure civilian targets. Does Al Qaeda qualify, in your opinion?

Under the Geneva Conventions, if one side catches a saboteur out of uniform behind their lines during a conflict, they are entitled to shoot him without trial. That is entirely in accord with the Geneva conventions.

It's Al Qaeda's position that they have a right to fight by blowing up civilian skyscrapers using civilian airlines. They consider it affirmative action in warfare.

Apparently you agree, as your entire concern is to make the US fight by rules that the other side has no intention of abiding by.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News