geneva convention

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - geneva convention

Posted: 1/10/2005 8:39:13 AM EDT

do we have to abide by the Geneva Convention even though terrorists didnt sign it and neither did iraq i think

Posted: 1/10/2005 8:39:59 AM EDT

[#1]

yes

Posted: 1/10/2005 8:41:08 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
yes

Correct.

Of course, terrorists don't fall under the Geneva Convention, so you can torture them on pay-per-view for all I care.

Posted: 1/10/2005 8:41:25 AM EDT

[#3]

Yes. However, it does not apply to any of the terrorist groups we are currently destroying. They are not a uniformed fighting force. Nor are they from an established State. They target civilians. Any one of these three disqualifies them from Geneva protections for POW's.

No matter what the Left bleats about.

Posted: 1/10/2005 8:41:45 AM EDT

[#4]

well that makes about as much sense as trying to put a square block in a round hole as far as iraq goes, so why do the leftists bleat about terrorists if the dont fall under its protection

Posted: 1/10/2005 8:43:13 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Yes. However, it does not apply to any of the terrorist groups we are currently destroying. They are not a uniformed fighting force. Nor are they from an established State. They target civilians. Any one of these three disqualifies them from Geneva protections for POW's.

No matter what the Left bleats about.

makes me feel better then, next one I find in my backyard i going in the basement.

Posted: 1/10/2005 8:53:49 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
well that makes about as much sense as trying to put a square block in a round hole as far as iraq goes, so why do the leftists bleat about terrorists if the dont fall under its protection

Because they ARE leftists and things like FACTS, LOGIC, and TRUTH have no place in their world.

Posted: 1/10/2005 8:57:06 AM EDT

[#7]

Terrorists can not be covered by the Geneva Convention because:

1. The did not sign it.
2. The are not part of an identified army that wears uniforms.
3. To do so would put them on the same level of protection as our brave soldiers fighting over there.
4. They are not part of a recognized state.
5. They kill civilians whenever they can.

Please, anyone correct me if I am wrong.

The left wants to elevate the terrorists protections so they are one the same level as our troops. The media has done a horrible job pointing that out.

Posted: 1/10/2005 9:00:11 AM EDT

[#8]

thats what i figured.... thanks fellas

Posted: 1/10/2005 9:15:31 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Terrorists can not be covered by the Geneva Convention because:

1. The did not sign it.
2. The are not part of an identified army that wears uniforms.
3. To do so would put them on the same level of protection as our brave soldiers fighting over there.
4. They are not part of a recognized state.
5. They kill civilians whenever they can.

Please, anyone correct me if I am wrong.

The left wants to elevate the terrorists protections so they are one the same level as our troops. The media has done a horrible job pointing that out.

Now, having SAID that (to which I agree) we SHOULD hold ourselves to a HIGHER standard than the terrorists hold themselves to... Thus, we can/SHOULD strive TOWARD the ideals of the Geneva convention, but we should not be BOUND by them and fear breaking international law (i.e. committing war-crimes).

Posted: 1/10/2005 9:18:09 AM EDT

[#10]

We ARE holding ourselves to a higher standard. Notice we didn't cut off any body parts from those detained at Guantanamo and even those Abu Garhaib pussies made it out without so much as a buise.

Posted: 1/10/2005 9:39:31 AM EDT

[#11]

It seems that I learned a while back that we are not a signatory of the Geneva Convention, but we abide by it.

Anyone verify that?

Posted: 1/10/2005 9:40:32 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
well that makes about as much sense as trying to put a square block in a round hole as far as iraq goes, so why do the leftists bleat about terrorists if the dont fall under its protection

Because they are generally clueless....

Posted: 1/10/2005 9:41:31 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
It seems that I learned a while back that we are not a signatory of the Geneva Convention, but we abide by it.

Anyone verify that?

AKAIK, we ARE signatories to the Convention. Almost certain of it, in fact.

Posted: 1/10/2005 9:51:51 AM EDT

[#14]

Doesn't the Geneva convention prohibit using the 50 against personnel? I believe I was taught that back in the day. Though, we were also told that we could shoot at the "equipment" they were wearing.

Posted: 1/10/2005 9:57:02 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Doesn't the Geneva convention prohibit using the 50 against personnel? I believe I was taught that back in the day. Though, we were also told that we could shoot at the "equipment" they were wearing.

Old ~~wive's~~ gunny's tale.

Posted: 1/10/2005 10:04:41 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Terrorists can not be covered by the Geneva Convention because:

1. The did not sign it.
2. The are not part of an identified army that wears uniforms.
3. To do so would put them on the same level of protection as our brave soldiers fighting over there.
4. They are not part of a recognized state.
5. They kill civilians whenever they can.

Please, anyone correct me if I am wrong.

The left wants to elevate the terrorists protections so they are one the same level as our troops. The media has done a horrible job pointing that out.

Now, having SAID that (to which I agree) we SHOULD hold ourselves to a HIGHER standard than the terrorists hold themselves to... Thus, we can/SHOULD strive TOWARD the ideals of the Geneva convention, but we should not be BOUND by them and fear breaking international law (i.e. committing war-crimes).

Sorry but what higher standard…

The “higher standard” that should be upheld is ANYONE intentionally targeting civilians that is caught should be questioned and then summarily executed.

AND

The Geneva Conventions was NEVER INTENDED to apply to terrorist. There were terrorist when the Geneva Conventions were originally adopted and terrorist WERE NOT considered worthy of protection.

Posted: 1/12/2005 6:39:56 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Now, having SAID that (to which I agree) we SHOULD hold ourselves to a HIGHER standard than the terrorists hold themselves to... Thus, we can/SHOULD strive TOWARD the ideals of the Geneva convention, but we should not be BOUND by them and fear breaking international law (i.e. committing war-crimes).

Sorry but what higher standard…

The “higher standard” that should be upheld is ANYONE intentionally targeting civilians that is caught should be questioned and then summarily executed.

AND

The Geneva Conventions was NEVER INTENDED to apply to terrorist. There were terrorist when the Geneva Conventions were originally adopted and terrorist WERE NOT considered worthy of protection.

No disagreement there! Summarily Executed? I have no problem with that... hanging, firing squad or lethal injection OK.... no beheading with a bowie knife, no tying them up laying on the ground and running a tank over them, or anything of the sort.

Agreed also that terrorist do not get geneva convention protections... I consider terrorists to be about the same as Barbary Coast pirates and brigands.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - geneva convention

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us