Army Guy Posted March 18, 2022 Report Posted March 18, 2022 Quote This is what you said: No they are straight out of the Geneva convention... If a person is declared a civilian , and he picks up a weapons' he becomes an unlawful combatant....which is not only illegal to be and can be tried as a war crime This is what's in the Geneva Conventions: 4.1.6 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. I'm not terribly concerned about the terminology you want to use (not-lawful or unlawful - it doesn't really matter to me), the point I was trying to make was that you were quoting the Geneva Conventions and getting them very wrong, with your statement above directly contradicting Article 4.16. The standards for laying charges against Ukrainian militias and resistance fighters would be high. Even partisans in occupied territories would be afforded protections providing they follow some basic rules. Once again you need to read what i wrote i gave you sources all you had to do was read them... The conventions have 5 groups of people 1...Civilians (non Combatant "don't shoot" ) , 2...Combatants ( which include any group authorized to fight on behalf of their country, these people will have Identification ( military ID card issued to them by the government, plus are required to wear an arm band or patch that can easily be seen... and must carry arms openly, these people are targets....3....mercenaries not protected under the Geneva convention, and 4.....Spies which also don't fall under the convention protection, ....and last but not least 5....Unlawful combatant...note there is no classification for terrorist yet...hence the unlawful combatant... The source i gave you explains this better, an Unlawful combatant is a status that is given only after a military tribunal has classified them...until then they are treated as a regular POW....( i explained all that) unlawful combatant is a civilian who decides they are going to join in the fight, and pick up a weapon. Why is this illegal's well if any civilian could pick up a weaponry and fight it would get pretty complicated on the battle field who is who and who do we shoot, you or them would be putting other in danger for your actions.......... hence why there are rules about arm bands or uniforms etc...the entire point of most of the conventions articles is to protect civilians...not allow them to willy nilly do what they want...As they are always the ones that pay the highest price, and are killed more often than anyone else... It should matter to you , your the one calling me out on it......I'm not even sure what reference is from, which source are you using as a Geneva convention as they are not all indexed the same , for instance Red cross IIRC is not the same as a legal office conventions, or actual convention Are you saying that my source is not valid ? they are taken from the convention. Your example is moot, why ? first everyone is a combatant if they have weapons' in hands and are partaking in the fight...like i said if you are have a weapon you are a legal target, you and everything around you.......after the battle ends and POWS are gathered all prisoners have to be sorted , either you have a ID card, dog tags etc issued by the government, if not you will be forwarded to a holding camp to take part in a military tribunal to be classified....it is here the court will decide what you are a combatant, or unlawful combatant, merc, or spy...each has benefits and disadvantages, being a merc, spy or unlawful combatant means you will most likely be charged with an offense... which could vary from prison time to death... Did you really think everyone can do what ever they want in a war zone occupied or non occupied, it all comes out in the wash... To answer your point you don't have to be in uniform, to fight, not sure why your not be it happens, but you do need proof you are a sanctioned member of some armed forces like dog tags or ID card, if not you are a POW who will be sent to a camp to be classified.. of course if your dead your still going to be vetted... If you are a partisans then one needs to have some authorization from the government ie card, you can't just join the fight becasue you think it is fun....aslk the French how their partisans where treated...Not everyone is afforded the protections of the Geneva convention, like notifying your family of your status, access to red cross or red cross supplies like care packages, you will be separated from the other POWs , no camp privilege's like books, smokes, etc... with one basic right everyone recieves regardless of what they are is to be treated humanely... Russia did has withdrawn for the Geneva convention, so our rules don't really matter, unless they are charged with a war crime, then it comes down to proving it in a court of law...which rarely happens... 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
myata Posted March 18, 2022 Report Posted March 18, 2022 So yes territorial defense, organized resistance are lawful under the convention, the requirement for a "card" is probably your fantasy and there isn't much point to discuss. 1 Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Moonbox Posted March 18, 2022 Report Posted March 18, 2022 11 hours ago, Army Guy said: Once again you need to read what i wrote i gave you sources all you had to do was read them... You need to trim your replies and organize your thoughts better. No offense intended, but past a certain point the quality of responses you get will diminish with the size of your word count and the number of big paragraphs you lay on us. 11 hours ago, Army Guy said: It should matter to you , your the one calling me out on it......I'm not even sure what reference is from, which source are you using as a Geneva convention as they are not all indexed the same , for instance Red cross IIRC is not the same as a legal office conventions, or actual convention Are you saying that my source is not valid ? they are taken from the convention. I'm highlighting that you're oversimplifying and mischaracterizing both the formal rules and the practical realities of how this works. What I quoted is part of the Third Geneva Convention (1949), Article 4, and like I said it's just one example of where you go wrong. It's not illegal nor a war crime to pick up and use a weapon as a civilian against an invading occupier, as you claimed, nor is your right to defend yourself, your property, your family and community based purely on some declaration of your status. 11 hours ago, Army Guy said: after the battle ends and POWS are gathered all prisoners have to be sorted , either you have a ID card, dog tags etc issued by the government, if not you will be forwarded to a holding camp to take part in a military tribunal to be classified....it is here the court will decide what you are a combatant, or unlawful combatant, merc, or spy...each has benefits and disadvantages Sure, but being a "not-lawful" combatant doesn't make you a criminal and especially not a war-criminal. Your status would be determined upon capture by the occupying forces and their laws. In the case of Ukraine, that would be Russia, whose observance of the Law (both international and domestic) is questionable at best. 13 hours ago, Army Guy said: If you are a partisans then one needs to have some authorization from the government ie card, you can't just join the fight becasue you think it is fun...aslk the French how their partisans where treated When you're occupied and no longer in contact with your government, your defacto government becomes your occupier, who obviously aren't going to authorize anything. Your survival at that point depends on their observance of the rules and their goodwill, but so too do your rights and obligations as an occupied "civilian". Ask the French resistance how many of their people were convicted of war crimes, vs how many German occupiers. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Army Guy Posted March 19, 2022 Author Report Posted March 19, 2022 (edited) 21 hours ago, myata said: So yes territorial defense, organized resistance are lawful under the convention, the requirement for a "card" is probably your fantasy and there isn't much point to discuss. Read what i had posted... in Ukraine territorial defense units are organized by the government and have been issue with all the documents they need... As a civilian you pick up a weaponry You are a target, or a combatant, if you are taken prisoner, and you have not registered with the government in this case Ukraine...then you will be separated from those prisoners that do have the proper ID, you will be sent to a camp where a military tribunal will determine your status... if it is deemed you are a Unlawful combatant you can and will be charged...If you do anything unlawful your breaking the law, i real don't understand why that is so hard to comprehend... My fantasy, why is it all NATO soldiers are issued with Dog tags and a valid military ID card, and in the case of Medics or medical persons, the carry a multi national card which states they are medical persons...I know i is my fantasy, but atleast check it our , before brushing it as fantasy...Any military person could tell you info... Quote 4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model. Military personal already have id cards... guess it was not a fantasy after all... Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - Geneva Convention (III) on Prisoners of War, 1949 - - (icrc.org) Edited March 19, 2022 by Army Guy 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted March 19, 2022 Author Report Posted March 19, 2022 8 hours ago, Moonbox said: You need to trim your replies and organize your thoughts better. No offense intended, but past a certain point the quality of responses you get will diminish with the size of your word count and the number of big paragraphs you lay on us. I'm highlighting that you're oversimplifying and mischaracterizing both the formal rules and the practical realities of how this works. What I quoted is part of the Third Geneva Convention (1949), Article 4, and like I said it's just one example of where you go wrong. It's not illegal nor a war crime to pick up and use a weapon as a civilian against an invading occupier, as you claimed, nor is your right to defend yourself, your property, your family and community based purely on some declaration of your status. Sure, but being a "not-lawful" combatant doesn't make you a criminal and especially not a war-criminal. Your status would be determined upon capture by the occupying forces and their laws. In the case of Ukraine, that would be Russia, whose observance of the Law (both international and domestic) is questionable at best. When you're occupied and no longer in contact with your government, your defacto government becomes your occupier, who obviously aren't going to authorize anything. Your survival at that point depends on their observance of the rules and their goodwill, but so too do your rights and obligations as an occupied "civilian". Ask the French resistance how many of their people were convicted of war crimes, vs how many German occupiers. You should spend some time reading what i posted , and read the sources i posted with it, then i would not have to keep repeating myself... I have to ask, how many times have you used the Geneva convention in either your work or life experiences ? I ask becasue i have 6 international tours during my service...Canadian Rules of Engagement are written by Government lawyers who know this topic and the Geneva Convention better than you and me, and while i am not an expert, i explained to you how the system works in, as they have explained it to us soldiers. Having been in combat and had to deal with the engagement of and capture of Unlawful combatants such as terrorist or Afghanistan civilians who have picked up a weapon and used it on coalition forces... The entire process is simple, and has i explained it...One just has to look at Gitmo and how all those nice guys ended up there...awaiting for a military tribunal to give them their classification. One would also have to ask why Omar was charged and convicted of murder if he was a combatant...he was classified as an Unlawful combatant not entitled to any of the conventions protections, and killing a soldier is murder, imagine that... It does not make you a criminal? just brake the word UNLAWFUL down for a second, it sounds cut and dry to me...Maybe tell omar that he was tried for murder in a combat zone...along with dozens of his buddies... i mean if it was lawful to run around and shot people everyone would be doing it... those rules are put in place to keep everyone in check so we don't have armies or people killing anyone they wish...Just imagine one civilian that decides to engage the enemy open fires from an apartment building , the Russians are free to engage, and the spray the building down with 30 mm auto cannon... and kills 10 of his neighbors see why Civilians that are not authorized by the government can't play soldier...They don't know the rules... You as a civilian have very little rights in war, let alone to defend anything...thats what your military is for, want to fight join up... if not when it is determined down the road your just a civy that decided to join the fight then you will answer to the law...kill a soldier and you'll be facing what Omar did... a prison term in a military prison, trust me not a hotel like civy jails... ask your self a couple of questions are you trained to fight ? against a trained soldier what do you think your odds are ? you got a rifle, a soldier has access to every weapon in the arsenal....your chances of defending anything are slim.... turn on the thermal site and pump 3 rounds of 30 mm into the place your hiding and all they are going to find are your sandals and red mist painted over the walls. Ask yourself, the conflict in Ukraine has been going on for a while now, and it is common for civilians to engage in combat, to the point where the soldiers are pretty jittery and are now firing at civilians becasue they don't know who is truly a non combatant OR some one that is going to ambush them later...Hence why the UN wrote that rule into the convention in the first place... it is illegal for a civy to join the fight for those very reasons it puts others in danger...want to protect your family ,put your family in the basement and wait thats your best option to survive...and when they do enter your house be non combative and do everything they ask or die it really is that simple... Governments never fall ( remember France in Britian)....they move to a safe place and regroup... yes while your occupied you are under foreign leadership...and since Russia is not a signatory of the Geneva Convention, life is going to suck and if you resist then they got lots of open fields to plant you in...and if they find out you have been fighting then your life got much more harder.. a prisoner war camp is not the place you want to spend the summer, not a Russian one any way... 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted March 19, 2022 Author Report Posted March 19, 2022 Quote Not going to spend much time here, but surely you have some evidence that Ukrainians are deliberately destroying cities, shelling schools and hospitals on their territory, killing their fellow citizens including children (over a hundred now, Google) to make a claim like that? Then do check (better, the images) about: Grozny; Aleppo; any number of places in Syria; and now: Kharkiv; Mariupol; Volnovakha; and any number you like of more places in Ukraine being razed to the ground by Russian murderous bastards, under the convention. It wouldn't hurt to refresh on where Russia's borders are, in all of these cases. Then go back to claiming that "all sides doing it". You think that all those bombs and bullets are magical that all of those Ukrainian munitions never miss come on lets wake up just a little bit here...there is all kinds of video of Ukrainian soldiers using arty to destroy vehicles ripping up roads , buildings... that was what happens in war... the Russians are not the only ones shooting...it is two ways ... man are you really that gullible to think that war is all sunshine and rainbows...thats is what happens cities get razed to the ground small towns cease to exist...people get blown up...shot at, and unfortunately civilians take the brunt of it EVERY, it is not limited time to a few conflict zones... it happens in all of them... USAF Drops 1,000 lb Bomb in Kunar | Military.com And thats just a one, 1000lb pounder, considering that aircraft can carry 6 to 8 of them....there is also 2000 lb's tell me that is not leaving behind destruction that does not level building roads, schools what ever... BOTH sides are using them.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted March 19, 2022 Author Report Posted March 19, 2022 This is not some Aleppo, some place God knows where. This is the geographical center of Europe. Now, this 21st century. Talk about conventions. https://storage2.censor.net/video/3/170322_vol.mp4 Becasue it is ok to happen any where but Europe... ya becasue that has never happened in Europe not in the 21 st century. Europe was one pile of rubble after WWII, not one country the entire continent... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
myata Posted March 19, 2022 Report Posted March 19, 2022 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: USAF Drops 1,000 lb Bomb in Kunar | Military.com OK "Kunar" is in Ukraine and USAF translates as "Ukrainian Army". Got ya. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Moonbox Posted March 19, 2022 Report Posted March 19, 2022 11 hours ago, Army Guy said: I have to ask, how many times have you used the Geneva convention in either your work or life experiences ? I ask becasue i have 6 international tours during my service... I have about as much experience navigating the Geneva Convention as you do with central banking policy (zero), but that didn't stop you from debating central banking, did it? 11 hours ago, Army Guy said: Canadian Rules of Engagement are written by Government lawyers who know this topic and the Geneva Convention better than you and me, and while i am not an expert, i explained to you how the system works in, as they have explained it to us soldiers. I'd never for a second debate Canadian Rules of Engagement with you. On these matters I'll happily defer to you as the expert. 11 hours ago, Army Guy said: The entire process is simple, and has i explained it...One just has to look at Gitmo and how all those nice guys ended up there...awaiting for a military tribunal to give them their classification. Not nearly as simple as you make it out to be, and I don't know why you'd bring up Gitmo considering it's widespread condemnation in international law. 12 hours ago, Army Guy said: It does not make you a criminal? just brake the word UNLAWFUL down for a second, it sounds cut and dry to me... Sorry bud, but this sort of argument doesn't really cut it in a legal setting. You've demonstrated a fairly poor understanding of how even the Canadian court system works in the past, so excuse me if question your logic in an international setting. Consider, for example, if a squad of Russian soldiers raided a Ukrainian farm, kidnapped the farmer's teenage daughter and then took her to the barn for some "fun". If this farmer grabbed his rifle and attempted to rescue her, are you trying to tell us that he'd be a criminal? He would not. His status as a not-lawful combatant would not diminish his rights to defend himself or his own, nor would it erase his rights under the Geneva Convention. A Russian tribunal might deem him an "unlawful combatant" or whatever they want to call him, but if he's not protected as a PoW under the Third Geneva Convention, he'd be protected under the 4th as a civilian and the Russians would have to make a criminal case against him as a civilian. Since Russians observance of the Law (whether domestic or international) is highly questionable in the first place, it's doubtful how fairly regardless. 12 hours ago, Army Guy said: Ask yourself, the conflict in Ukraine has been going on for a while now, and it is common for civilians to engage in combat, to the point where the soldiers are pretty jittery and are now firing at civilians becasue they don't know who is truly a non combatant OR some one that is going to ambush them later...Hence why the UN wrote that rule into the convention in the first place... it is illegal for a civy to join the fight for those very reasons it puts others in danger and this is why wars of conquest haven't really been seriously undertaken in the last 70-80 years. Occupying territory where the natives don't want you is generally a disastrous affair, rarely worth the lives and resources. When a civilian/partisan resistance group forms, most of the people involved do so understanding the inherent danger, knowing that their lives are very likely forfeit if they're caught and that the occupiers will treat them harshly (and very possibly be summarily/extra-judiciously executed). In international law, this is a pretty murky area (as evidenced by GITMO). Denying them rights, representation and fair trials is at the peril of the occupying forces. Ask the convicted Nazi war criminals how they fared for executing French and Soviet partisans. It's not nearly as cut-and-dry as you'd like to think it is. In the case of the USA and Russia, might unfortunately often makes right. The US is likely guilty of a host of war crimes over the years, but their status as the dominant economic and military power makes prosecution difficult/impossible. The Russians and Chinese are blessed with similar protection. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Army Guy Posted March 19, 2022 Author Report Posted March 19, 2022 16 hours ago, myata said: OK "Kunar" is in Ukraine and USAF translates as "Ukrainian Army". Got ya. I actually thought i was pretty self explanatory, big bombs make big booms, and both sides use them a lot where ever the bad guys are be it in cities or in open ground, either way both sides are interested in one thing kill as many as they can, to stop the advance of Russian soldiers, in doing so shit gets blown up and damaged......and yes innocent civilians are killed in those attacks...it is so common they invented a word for it , it's called collateral damage... War is the same whether in Africa , middle east , or Europe. The video was made to stir emotion, to prompt world leaders to do more, or to show the world what it is like...here in North America very few people know what war is and what it looks like... where was your compassion for the other conflicts...Oh right the hockey game was on... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted March 20, 2022 Author Report Posted March 20, 2022 5 hours ago, Moonbox said: 1.... I have about as much experience navigating the Geneva Convention as you do with central banking policy (zero), but that didn't stop you from debating central banking, did it? 2.....I'd never for a second debate Canadian Rules of Engagement with you. On these matters I'll happily defer to you as the expert. 3....Not nearly as simple as you make it out to be, and I don't know why you'd bring up Gitmo considering it's widespread condemnation in international law. 4.... Sorry bud, but this sort of argument doesn't really cut it in a legal setting. You've demonstrated a fairly poor understanding of how even the Canadian court system works in the past, so excuse me if question your logic in an international setting. 5....Consider, for example, if a squad of Russian soldiers raided a Ukrainian farm, kidnapped the farmer's teenage daughter and then took her to the barn for some "fun". If this farmer grabbed his rifle and attempted to rescue her, are you trying to tell us that he'd be a criminal? He would not. His status as a not-lawful combatant would not diminish his rights to defend himself or his own, nor would it erase his rights under the Geneva Convention. A Russian tribunal might deem him an "unlawful combatant" or whatever they want to call him, but if he's not protected as a PoW under the Third Geneva Convention, he'd be protected under the 4th as a civilian and the Russians would have to make a criminal case against him as a civilian. 6...Since Russians observance of the Law (whether domestic or international) is highly questionable in the first place, it's doubtful how fairly regardless. 7... and this is why wars of conquest haven't really been seriously undertaken in the last 70-80 years. Occupying territory where the natives don't want you is generally a disastrous affair, rarely worth the lives and resources. When a civilian/partisan resistance group forms, most of the people involved do so understanding the inherent danger, knowing that their lives are very likely forfeit if they're caught and that the occupiers will treat them harshly (and very possibly be summarily/extra-judiciously executed). In international law, this is a pretty murky area (as evidenced by GITMO). Denying them rights, representation and fair trials is at the peril of the occupying forces. Ask the convicted Nazi war criminals how they fared for executing French and Soviet partisans. It's not nearly as cut-and-dry as you'd like to think it is. In the case of the USA and Russia, might unfortunately often makes right. The US is likely guilty of a host of war crimes over the years, but their status as the dominant economic and military power makes prosecution difficult/impossible. The Russians and Chinese are blessed with similar protection. 1.... still on about banking policy...got to learn to let that go...I already admitted my faults and thanked you for the learning experience.. I'm sure we have all made mistakes... 2....I am no expert, i have experience with working with them on a regular bases...Rules of engagement are crafted from the Conventions by civilian lawyers, last thing the PM wants is one of his soldiers charged with a war crime...so all soldiers are briefed and tested regularly on ROE,s and how they apply to the conventions... 3... Gitmo was NATO holding camp for high value terrorist, awaiting to have their day in front of a military tribunal to determine their classification.. Nothing illegal about the practice of holding people in a camp, what the inter national community did not like is the bad guys did not have regular access to legal council...But the military tribunal was not going to charge them with anything , just determine their status... later if it was deemed the proceeding would move to a legal court, so they can answer for the crimes they commit...such as Omar for instance he had several lawyers represent him of the course of his trail... 4...Why was Omar charged for the count of murder and why did he serve time in a prison...think about that for a second...one he shot a US army special forces medic...A war crime, two he murdered a US soldier... if he was a combatant who pick up a weapon at any time to fight ...Why is it a war crime to shot a soldier...you answer those questions and things are going to be clearer... 5...Well if he did not die in the attempt, and he killed a soldier in the process , then yes that would be up to a court to find him guilty or innocent....you introduced Russian soldier to the equation, he would be probable hauled around back and shot... it is not like they have not done it before in this conflict either way it is not going to end well for the father or daughter...i mean if your committed to raping a women it is not that far off to kill them after the act so there are no wittiness...War crimes MUST meet the same level of proof as we the west use in Civilian courts... Not sure what rights you think you have during a conflict, soldiers can kick you out of your house for any reason really, be it a HQ, first aid station, sleeping quarters, ... take your food or water, live stock, medication, car ,truck, and in the case of Ukraine, they can take your son and daughters of military age for military service...what rights do you think you have... 6...Like i said Russia pulled out of the Geneva Convention, and are not bond by any of its contents...Not the same for Ukraine so the rules are one sided... 7....In most conflicts it is very clear when both sides are made to up hold the Geneva convention...In Ukraine and Russia it is not the same, and anyone captured is going to be treated harshly, or just shot, again precedent has already been proven here... Shit even captured Russian soldiers do not want to be returned to Russia becasue they fear being shot by Russia forces, so ya they are bad guys... Everyone is treated as a pow ...until the enemy forces inspect your person, and you do not have any ID card or dog tags, then you will be sent of to a camp that determines your status...if and when this happens, and your deemed a unlawful combatant such as Omar, Just being an unlawful combatant is a crime... but if you commit any other crimes like Omar and it can be proven in a court of law then, you just added to your charges.. 8.... in all of history there has only been a few victors charged with war crimes, a couple exceptions, Canada had an officer charged with murdering Germany military personal, by burying them alive in a mass grave.... happened after the liberation of a concentration camp....So ya might does make right... Unlawful combatants forfeit all rights and protections of the Geneva Convention, as do Mercs, Spys. however until that is determined everyone is treated as a POW...although your alive it is not going to be a pleasant experience.. US military does not allow any foreign power to sentence any of its soldiers, for any reason, that is written into the policies of NATO... becasue they like you said are the big dicks in the neighborhood and they make the rules.. 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
myata Posted March 20, 2022 Report Posted March 20, 2022 16 hours ago, Army Guy said: where was your compassion for the other conflicts... 1. This is no "conflict". When someone breaks into a peaceful home holds the family at knife point or kills it it's not called "a conflict" in any normal language. 2. I don't pretend to have a solution for all conflict. If there's a clear cut definition of an unprovoked, criminal aggression you would have to work very hard to find a better example. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Moonbox Posted March 20, 2022 Report Posted March 20, 2022 16 hours ago, Army Guy said: 1.... still on about banking policy...got to learn to let that go...I already admitted my faults and thanked you for the learning experience.. I'm sure we have all made mistakes... That's fine, but your asking me to defer to your experience as a soldier is a bit hypocritical considering how unwilling you were to the same on issues like the above. Like I said, I'd never for a second question your understanding of the Canadian Rules of Engagement, especially in Afghanistan. On the Geneva Conventions, however, you're not correct. You continue to oversimplify or say stuff that is flat out wrong. 16 hours ago, Army Guy said: 4...Why was Omar charged for the count of murder and why did he serve time in a prison...think about that for a second...one he shot a US army special forces medic...A war crime, two he murdered a US soldier... if he was a combatant who pick up a weapon at any time to fight ...Why is it a war crime to shot a soldier...you answer those questions and things are going to be clearer... Gosh Omar Khadr is about the worst example you could use to make your case. Not only was he a Canadian citizen working with a known terrorist group (which muddies things up considerably), his actions were never recognized as a war crime in international law and his incarceration at GITMO and tribunal proceedings were determined to be violations of international law, and by the SCoC itself. That's not to say Omar didn't commit crimes, because he obviously did, but even as an enemy/unlawful combatant it was clearly determined he still had rights. 16 hours ago, Army Guy said: Not sure what rights you think you have during a conflict, soldiers can kick you out of your house for any reason really, be it a HQ, first aid station, sleeping quarters, ... take your food or water, live stock, medication, car ,truck Everyone has rights - always. They don't magically vanish if you find yourself in a war zone. Stealing from civilian populations (looting) is considered a war crime in itself, and though some amounts of commandeering for things of military value (food, gasoline etc...) may be "okay", taking life-threatening amounts is not and can qualify as a war crime as well. 17 hours ago, Army Guy said: Unlawful combatants forfeit all rights and protections of the Geneva Convention, as do Mercs, Spys. however until that is determined everyone is treated as a POW...although your alive it is not going to be a pleasant experience.. Wrong again. Nobody has no rights under the Geneva Convention. Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. ' There is no ' intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/COM/380-600007#:~:text=Every person in enemy hands,covered by the First Convention. 17 hours ago, Army Guy said: US military does not allow any foreign power to sentence any of its soldiers, for any reason, that is written into the policies of NATO... becasue they like you said are the big dicks in the neighborhood and they make the rules.. Which weakens the credibility and authority of the Geneva and Hague Conventions as well as the ICRC. In most cases, war crimes prosecution is reserved for losers and rarely for winners. There's little legal or moral authority behind these exceptions, but the practical realities are what they are. Most war crimes probably go unpunished because, as you say, if you're going to commit one you're probably not too against eliminating witnesses, or in the case of the USA you hold yourself above international law. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
WestCanMan Posted March 20, 2022 Report Posted March 20, 2022 On 3/18/2022 at 8:59 PM, Army Guy said: You should spend some time reading what i posted , and read the sources i posted with it, then i would not have to keep repeating myself... I have to ask, how many times have you used the Geneva convention in either your work or life experiences ? I ask becasue i have 6 international tours during my service... Even for people like me who served in the military, but aren't veterans (I finished my 3 years in 1990 and got out), the Geneva Conventions and the wars of law are usually just answers to a trivia question. We may be kind of familiar with them, but it's not the same at all as it is for people like you who lived by those laws and had to abide by them, making split-second decisions which could impact you for the rest of your life. I find it highly disrespectful that people are questioning your knowledge of the topic. It's like someone going in for surgery and telling the Dr what to do. Then they're surprised when ten years later their x-ray tech says "It looks like there's a giant dildo in your chest. How did that get there?" The rules of engagement almost seem unfair to actual military personnel who are fully uniformed and identifiable from head to toe 24/7, because civilians can fight for an hour a day and then wander around in their civvies the rest of the time, munching on baguettes, free as the day they were born. Thanks again for your service Army Guy. Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. Bug-juice is the new Kool-aid. Ex-Canadian since April 2025
WestCanMan Posted March 20, 2022 Report Posted March 20, 2022 3 hours ago, myata said: 1. This is no "conflict". When someone breaks into a peaceful home holds the family at knife point or kills it it's not called "a conflict" in any normal language. 1) The Monroe Doctrine, which the US has considered legitimate for over 100 years, says that if any European countries colonize any country in NA or SA that it could be deemed a 'hostile act". A hostile act is definitely grounds for war. 2) After the US had already invaded Cuba and failed, and the Cubans had every reason to believe that the yanks would be back ( there was actually a plan for another invasion), and they started building missile silos in Cuba, with the help of Russia. Kennedy freaked. Every option was on the table, including military strikes against Cuban targets. In the end he settled for a naval blockade (quarantine) and threatened to destroy and Soviet ships that tried to get through. Then they depth-charged a Russian sub in international waters. When was the last time that you called Kennedy's actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis illegitimate? The US and Ukraine HAVE BIOWEAPONS IN UKRAINE. ILLEGALLY. They lied about it, extensively, but now the cat is outta the bag. Ukraine is also threatening to join NATO, which is far more invasive than a European country colonizing Peru, or Cuba getting missile silos to defend themselves from a country that just invaded them a year earlier. But Russia just has to suffer in silence, and just leave the bioweapons there, when it was OK for the US to go berserk about Cuba? There are 20 countries in NATO. Ukraine is huge, with over 3,000km of borders with Russia and Belarus. NATO can park an army in Ukraine that could flatten Russia within days and Russia can't defend that much border. Russia won't stand for Ukraine's transgressions, cute and cuddly as they may seem to you. If this war gets messier, Ukrainians will suffer far worse atrocities than what we've seen so far. Gimme a break. Your hypocrisy is visible from outer space. Quote 2. I don't pretend to have a solution for all conflict. If there's a clear cut definition of an unprovoked, criminal aggression you would have to work very hard to find a better example. This is already proven to be silly, as I mentioned above, but it's ok for people to fight back, they just have to do it within the laws of war. Those laws exist "TO PROTECT CIVILIANS". If there's a war by your house, and your neighbours all abide by the laws of war, you should be reasonably safe. If they shoot at a tank from a hospital, the hospital can legally go KABOOM! Those are the laws of war, and they make sense for both sides, 24/7. If the war goes to Russian soil, and Russian civilians fire on a tank from inside a hospital, the Russian hospital will egally be targeted by enemy units. Easy peasy. So yes, it's ok for Ukrainians to fight, but when they break the laws Russia gets to break laws that they were previously constrained by, and at that point you don't get to call the Russians bad names. Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. Bug-juice is the new Kool-aid. Ex-Canadian since April 2025
Army Guy Posted March 20, 2022 Author Report Posted March 20, 2022 1 hour ago, Moonbox said: 1....hat's fine, but your asking me to defer to your experience as a soldier is a bit hypocritical considering how unwilling you were to the same on issues like the above. Like I said, I'd never for a second question your understanding of the Canadian Rules of Engagement, especially in Afghanistan. On the Geneva Conventions, however, you're not correct. You continue to oversimplify or say stuff that is flat out wrong. 2...;.Gosh Omar Khadr is about the worst example you could use to make your case. Not only was he a Canadian citizen working with a known terrorist group (which muddies things up considerably), his actions were never recognized as a war crime in international law and his incarceration at GITMO and tribunal proceedings were determined to be violations of international law, and by the SCoC itself. That's not to say Omar didn't commit crimes, because he obviously did, but even as an enemy/unlawful combatant it was clearly determined he still had rights. 3....Everyone has rights - always. They don't magically vanish if you find yourself in a war zone. Stealing from civilian populations (looting) is considered a war crime in itself, and though some amounts of commandeering for things of military value (food, gasoline etc...) may be "okay", taking life-threatening amounts is not and can qualify as a war crime as well. Wrong again. Nobody has no rights under the Geneva Convention. Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. ' There is no ' intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/COM/380-600007#:~:text=Every person in enemy hands,covered by the First Convention. Which weakens the credibility and authority of the Geneva and Hague Conventions as well as the ICRC. In most cases, war crimes prosecution is reserved for losers and rarely for winners. There's little legal or moral authority behind these exceptions, but the practical realities are what they are. Most war crimes probably go unpunished because, as you say, if you're going to commit one you're probably not too against eliminating witnesses, or in the case of the USA you hold yourself above international law. 1.... I gave you sources which supported my point i was making, not sure what else to say... 2....He was a Canadian who joined a terrorist organization, fighting a war in Afghanistan. that was engaged in terrorist activities, against the people of Afghanistan, and allied coalition forces. the fact he made a video tape which helped convict him as a terrorist, made it easier...I used his example becasue he was one of the few that was convicted and was sentenced to prison time...His crime shooting and killing a US army soldier.. The inter-national law and SCOC took issue with a lot of things about Omar's case, but not the murder charge or other criminal charges he had...Again why is that ? Nor did they have issue with his classification as an unlawful combatant...He was charged with the murder of a US service person, sentenced and placed in prison, Why is that? and would later be transfer to a Canadian prison to serve out the rest of his time. Had the SCoC had issue with his charges of murder and other charges they could have done something after the transfer was made...instead they were silent, and allow him to serve the remainder of his time why is that ?... As an unlawful combatant , mercenary, or spy , they are not entitled to any of the protections under the Conventions...It does not mean they don't have any protections, such as being treated humanely, no torture etc... it means they do not have the any of the other protections as other classifications. Quote An unlawful combatant, illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is, according to United States law, a person who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war and therefore is claimed to not be protected by the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949 (GCIII) of 1949 defines the requirements for a captive to be eligible for treatment as a POW. A lawful combatant is a person who commits belligerent acts, and, when captured, is treated as a POW. An unlawful combatant is someone who commits belligerent acts but does not qualify for POW status under GCIII Articles 4 and 5. Unlawful combatant - Wikipedia Mercenaries: he Geneva Conventions declare that mercenaries are not recognized as legitimate combatants and do not have to be granted the same legal protections as captured service personnel of a regular army.[3] In practice, whether or not a person is a mercenary may be a matter of degree, as financial and political interests may overlap. My question was why was Omar arrested and charged for murder, If as you say anybody can pick up a weapon and fight... Why were the dozens of others in Gitmo, charged with various other offenses... Mercenary - Wikipedia 3...I did not mention stealing or looting, But i would not tempt them by leaving valuables hanging around....i meant confiscation, such as your home , fuel , food, veh,live stock etc... I ask you how much rights do you think a Russian , Chinese soldier going to give you...lets reverse that for a second What rights do you think you will have when a NATO soldier knocks on your door, and tells you you have 5 mins to vacate your home we are going to use it for military purposes, your rights of procession of property, are gone out the window, you and your family are out on the street,or in the basement out of the way... you can protest or argue at any time, you will be dragged out and dumped on the street better to obey and survive or put up a stink and be arrested ...it will be the military's home until they leave....while you may be compensated in some form, it is not guaranteed, your home is going to be highly modified to suit the militaries purpose be it a defensive position, hospital, etc...your home is not going to be the same... 4... again thanks for taking the time to read any of my posts....I have already answered your question or remarks... everyone captured or processed on the battle field ( the Dead) are treated as POWs.... providing you pass several checks... one you follow all the rules of war, your dress, in a uniform OR wear a symbol such as armband, or in case of the Ukraine's a yellow band around one arm...must have a chain of command, and carry arms openly. or have documentation proving your been registered with the Ukraine government like all the militia , home defense, foreign fighters, partisan's as you call them.. this could be in a form of ID card, dog tags, etc...if you don't have any of that once you reach either the prison camp, or detention center, then they are going to process you to give you a classification, if the government has you registered then you as a combatant, if your not then they hold a tribunal to decide what you are...if your classified as a unlawful combatant, then you are no longer held in with the combatants, you will be forwarded to a court where you can be charged with fighting in a combat zone, as a unlawful combatant...and what ever other charges they press... Your suggesting there is only 2 types of classification of what you can be is untrue... if have given you a list of the types of people on the battle field... check them out and re read the conventions on them, gave you fresh sources read those... The US government refuses to have any of it's soldiers tried in a foreign court, all court cases will be done in the US... and it does not weaken anything, US courts have found US soldiers guilty of many offensives and convicted them to serve prison time in the US, in a military prison...Not all war crimes are tried in inter national courts...unless they are of a sever nature, like commanders in the Yugoslavia war and mass murder was committed or suspected... You must find it a little strange that anyone can pick up a weapon, and fight while not understanding the basics of warfare, and be mixed with the general population while not in a uniform or wearing distinctive markings such as arm bands etc....you don't see a problem with that...who is who, how does a soldier tell the difference...how does the rest of the civilian population stay protected, when the general population is fighting and not adhering to the laws of conflict...and then scream civilians are being targeted...can't have both...fight and die, or be protected by the conventions... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
WestCanMan Posted March 20, 2022 Report Posted March 20, 2022 2 hours ago, Moonbox said: That's not to say Omar didn't commit crimes, because he obviously did, but even as an enemy/unlawful combatant it was clearly determined he still had rights. For sure he had rights after he was captured, but not the same rights as a uniformed soldier. When Bush was POTUS his administration made it law that unlawful combatants could be held indefinitely without trial. https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/unlawful-combatants Quote The term “unlawful combatant” is used to refer to an individual who belongs to an armed group, in a context where either the individual or the group do not fulfil the conditions for combatant status. The term was employed by the administration of President George W. Bush of the United States in its ‘global war on terror’ to describe persons who are, in its view, neither combatants nor civilians but belong to a third category of persons who can be attacked at any time and can be detained indefinitely without trial. It is also sometimes used as a synonym for “unprivileged belligerent”. Obama's administration changed that: https://www.americanbar.org/advocacy/governmental_legislative_work/priorities_policy/civil_liberties/enemy_combatants/ Quote On January 22, 2009, President Barack Obama immediately set in motion plans to reverse policies and actions of Bush Administration regarding the detention, treatment and prosecution of terrorist suspects who were captured after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. When President Obama took office, approximately 200 terrorist suspects were being held at Guantánamo Bay, some of whom had been there for as long as 6 years, and most for at least 4 years. Many of them were declared enemy combatants and approximately 20 were officially charged and awaiting military commission trials. In Executive Order 13492, following through on a campaign pledge, President Obama directed that the Guantánamo Bay military prison be closed "as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. The Order, among other things, directed a review, coordinated by the Attorney General, of the status of Guantánamo detainees to determine whether it was possible to transfer or release them, consistent with national security and the foreign interests of the United States. On January 22, 2010, the Guantánamo Review Task Force concluded that of the 196 detainees at Guantánamo, about 35 should be prosecuted in federal or military courts, nearly 50 should be detained without trial, and about 110 could be transferred to other countries. Quote Wrong again. Nobody has no rights under the Geneva Convention. People have protections under the Geneva Conventions, but there's a clear path for uniformed personnel to surrender, and how they need to be treated if they do. If/when the war ends they get to go home. That protection isn't guaranteed for unlawful combatants. If that's determined to be their status then they'll face a military tribunal. The end of the war has no bearing on their status as a prisoner because they've been sentenced criminally. Quote Which weakens the credibility and authority of the Geneva and Hague Conventions as well as the ICRC. In most cases, war crimes prosecution is reserved for losers and rarely for winners. There's little legal or moral authority behind these exceptions, but the practical realities are what they are. Most war crimes probably go unpunished because, as you say, if you're going to commit one you're probably not too against eliminating witnesses, or in the case of the USA you hold yourself above international law. Sure, but if we're being honest, the Geneva Conventions don't really do much while a war is raging anyways. Everyone will lie about everything that happened and the winner will write the history books. It's mostly armchair quarterbacks and propagandists that they apply to, really. Eg, people still argue about whether or not hundreds of civilians were gassed in Syria, in the age of smartphones with cameras and modern medical diagnostics. If they were gassed, who gassed them? Rools, shmools. You can basically count yourself as lucky if you're in a war zone and you suddenly become protected by/subjected to the GCs. It means that you still have your brain box intact. Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. Bug-juice is the new Kool-aid. Ex-Canadian since April 2025
WestCanMan Posted March 20, 2022 Report Posted March 20, 2022 6 minutes ago, Army Guy said: 1.... I gave you sources which supported my point i was making, not sure what else to say... 2....He was a Canadian who joined a terrorist organization, fighting a war in Afghanistan. that was engaged in terrorist activities, against the people of Afghanistan, and allied coalition forces. the fact he made a video tape which helped convict him as a terrorist, made it easier...I used his example becasue he was one of the few that was convicted and was sentenced to prison time...His crime shooting and killing a US army soldier.. I think that with the Khadr case, the fact that the US had GWB laws on the books when Khadr was detained and Obama laws when he was released played a part. Under Bush's law there was no requirement for a trial, and he could be held indefinitely. Obama changed that. The guys who now control Afghanistan could tell us all about it lol. In Canada I think that the case was made that our gov't should have fought the US in court for custody of him, and brought him here, but I don't know why that's a thing because he committed his crimes against Americans. People from Canada who kill people in NYC go to jail in NY. Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. Bug-juice is the new Kool-aid. Ex-Canadian since April 2025
Army Guy Posted March 20, 2022 Author Report Posted March 20, 2022 (edited) 6 hours ago, WestCanMan said: I find it highly disrespectful that people are questioning your knowledge of the topic. It's like someone going in for surgery and telling the Dr what to do. Then they're surprised when ten years later their x-ray tech says "It looks like there's a giant dildo in your chest. How did that get there?" The rules of engagement almost seem unfair to actual military personnel who are fully uniformed and identifiable from head to toe 24/7, because civilians can fight for an hour a day and then wander around in their civvies the rest of the time, munching on baguettes, free as the day they were born. Thanks again for your service Army Guy. I don't see it as disrespectful, questions are good for both sides of the debate, i get to brush up on the convention as so does the rest involved in the post... i welcome all challenges, I am by no means an expert...just a person with some experience...like cops, they don't know all the law, but they can tell you when your drinking and driving... Like any laws there are way to many loop holes that people take advantage of... we once had a Taliban scumbag, strap on a suicide explosive vest on to a 5 year old, and told him to walk towards out check point. The kid was old enough to know what he was doing was wrong...and was crying and acting weird, it drew our attention, through our scopes we could make out the vest and explosives, our sgt at the time gave all 5 of us order when the boy reached 200 meters we would have to kill him...we took up firing positions..i did a lot of praying that day, i had a son who was also 5 years old...we got lucky that day and spotted the Taliban scumbag with a cell phone waiting to command detonate the explosives as soon as the boy got closer to us... he seen us pointing at him, and moving to get shoots at him, and he killed the boy anyways, and ran... we gave chase, we spotted him in the distance and just before he entered a mosque my buddy put a round through the back of his head at over 200 meters...the terrorist clearly fell inside the mosque and he was charged with violation of places of worship...and sent back to Canada to face trail in our courts, he was found not guilty but released from the military...for some made up reasons... The rules are never in the favor of soldiers, in Yugo during the start of the conflict, our rules of engagement were we could only fire back if we were shot at first,...you prayed that the guy was a poor shot, in Afghanistan, all that was needed was for you to perceive a threat to your life or anyone else in our party ... pretty open ended ROE, and you could destroy entire villages if the enemy had dug themselves in , and could not be dug out without the loss of several of our lives... hence the massive use of air power or tanks and armoured vehs... operation medusa they managed to fire all the ammo the Canadians had in Afghanistan, plus all the ammo we had in storage in Canada in just 3 days of combat... that was mountains of ammo, plus we had to borrow from us stock piles.. they had flattened several towns and villages as more than a couple thousand Taliban tried to make a stand...the landscape looked like the moon... US war planes of every type flew mission those days including A-10 and B-52's, thank god for American airpower and tank support ... Edited March 21, 2022 by Army Guy 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Moonbox Posted March 21, 2022 Report Posted March 21, 2022 2 hours ago, Army Guy said: An unlawful combatant, illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is, according to United States law, a person who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war and therefore is claimed to not be protected by the Geneva Conventions. You see the problem with your quote there, right? These aren't arguments rooted in international law, but rather the United States' self-serving codification of excusing themselves from the parts of the Geneva Conventions they find inconvenient. I provided a direct quote from the ICRC, the group mandated by the signatories of the Geneva Conventions and the only entity named in International Humanitarian Law as a controlling authority. They're saying the exact opposite. The Americans, as we have already determined, make their own rules based on strength rather than any legitimate arguments in International Law. They're regularly criticized for their abuses by the ICRC, the UN and within their own borders (particularly with Guantanamo Bay and the appalling subversion of rights that it represents), but their answer is basically, and the answer is nothing, because nobody really can. This is rule by might rather than rule by Law 3 hours ago, Army Guy said: Your suggesting there is only 2 types of classification of what you can be is untrue... if have given you a list of the types of people on the battle field... check them out and re read the conventions on them, gave you fresh sources read those... No, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm clearly showing you what the only organization named as a controlling authority in International Humanitarian Law has ruled, and I quoted it directly from their website. Your Wikipedia quotes don't really stand up to that, I'm afraid, especially as interpreted by the US. That's not to say the US flaunts the Conventions entirely, but rather that they uphold them as long as they agree with them and then will rationalize/justify not upholding them when they're inconvenient and don't serve their purposes. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Army Guy Posted March 21, 2022 Author Report Posted March 21, 2022 1 hour ago, Moonbox said: 1....You see the problem with your quote there, right? These aren't arguments rooted in international law, but rather the United States' self-serving codification of excusing themselves from the parts of the Geneva Conventions they find inconvenient. I provided a direct quote from the ICRC, the group mandated by the signatories of the Geneva Conventions and the only entity named in International Humanitarian Law as a controlling authority. They're saying the exact opposite. The Americans, as we have already determined, make their own rules based on strength rather than any legitimate arguments in International Law. They're regularly criticized for their abuses by the ICRC, the UN and within their own borders (particularly with Guantanamo Bay and the appalling subversion of rights that it represents), but their answer is basically, and the answer is nothing, because nobody really can. This is rule by might rather than rule by Law No, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm clearly showing you what the only organization named as a controlling authority in International Humanitarian Law has ruled, and I quoted it directly from their website. Your Wikipedia quotes don't really stand up to that, I'm afraid, especially as interpreted by the US. That's not to say the US flaunts the Conventions entirely, but rather that they uphold them as long as they agree with them and then will rationalize/justify not upholding them when they're inconvenient and don't serve their purposes. 1....That is becasue at the time there where no mention of terrorist in the conventions, But as i showed you a source from the convention dated 1949, that they at the time used to term "not lawful combatants" which not sure how that translates in Ontario, but here in NB unlawful combatants, and not lawful combatants would mean the same thing, as i pretty sure they translate in inter national law as well...... Well since they are the worlds policemen then yes they get to make the rules, want to have a say in the rules , contribute, something, anything, but Canada has been negligent in everyone of it's defensive pacts it has signed onto.. and flaunts it to the rest of the world for decades now... and Canadians love it, it is a sense of pride... Canada wants to play like it has balls, but really we are like that little yappy dog, can i play spike can i can i play spike.... Yes becasue some how terrorist should be shown mercy, and afforded rights as they had and still are showing their compassion for their own people today... Omar should have been tried in Afghanistan as a terrorist, where he committed his crimes, want to know how they treat Terrorist... probably not... there are many different organizations that have contributed to the conventions, the Red cross was the originator of the document, Quote The development of the Geneva Conventions was closely associated with the Red Cross, whose founder, Henri Dunant, initiated international negotiations that produced the Convention for the Amelioration of the Wounded in Time of War in 1864. then it was a combination of of experiences they did not wanted to be repeated after WWII, and it was changed and ratified by the UN, Red Cross, inter national law, plus the laws of every country that ratified the agreement during the cold war the document took hold in the UN, with changes and modification being done in those chambers...once again it requires ratification by the nations...Note not every country signed on to participate in the entire document, meaning parts I, II, III, IV. Inter national humanitarian law is not the controlling agency for the conventions. it may have contributed portions of it , or some of it's laws used with in it. But not the controlling agency, which today is the UN, and for certain parts the IIRC. The wiki Pedi sources have been taken from the IIRC and the UN charter or conventions... I did and have used other sources the ones from the first post are from the the convention dated 1949. and while they might use different wording, they are the same... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
myata Posted March 21, 2022 Report Posted March 21, 2022 13 hours ago, WestCanMan said: The US and Ukraine HAVE BIOWEAPONS IN Go have a f#$%ing fruitful discussion with Putin, Hitler or the like. Nothing to add here, and not a slightest intention. 1 Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Nexii Posted March 21, 2022 Report Posted March 21, 2022 Not an expert on the Geneva Conventions but are they outdated for modern warfare? Quote
Army Guy Posted March 21, 2022 Author Report Posted March 21, 2022 2 hours ago, Nexii said: Not an expert on the Geneva Conventions but are they outdated for modern warfare? There are a lot of areas that need to be updated, but it is hard, update it to much and it would have to be ratified once again... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Moonbox Posted March 21, 2022 Report Posted March 21, 2022 16 hours ago, Army Guy said: Well since they are the worlds policemen then yes they get to make the rules, want to have a say in the rules , contribute, something, anything, but Canada has been negligent in everyone of it's defensive pacts it has signed onto.. The US gets to play by their own rules and adhere to or ignore the Geneva Conventions as they see fit. Nobody was talking about Canada, so I'm not sure why you figure that's relevant. 16 hours ago, Army Guy said: Inter national humanitarian law is not the controlling agency for the conventions. it may have contributed portions of it , or some of it's laws used with in it. But not the controlling agency, which today is the UN, and for certain parts the IIRC. International is the whole point of the conventions - the very purpose of their existing. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.