Author Topic: The Geneva Convention, Trump, and killing ISIS families (Read 5644 times)

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #15 on:** December 22, 2015, 08:17:09 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

The original point of this topic seemed to be that the Geneva Convention does not apply to a war against ISIS and we should not talk as if it does. Whether a war would be just is a completely different issue. Abiding by the Geneva Convention does not make an unjust war just nor does not abiding by the Geneva Convention make a just war unjust. The Geneva Convention is merely an agreement among nations as to how they will conduct war, codifying what had become the customary practices of war.

The fact is that the Geneva Convention itself declares that no nation is bound by its requirements if the opposing forces do not follow its requirements. One of the main requirements in the Geneva Convention is that combatants must be able to be clearly identified by military uniforms. If the opposing force does not have uniforms, then the Geneva Convention allows a country at war with that force to kill all persons they believe might be enemy combatants. This is why the so-called "free-fire zones" in Vietnam were not violations of the Geneva Convention for, at the time they were being employed, the enemy were guerrilla fighters not wearing identifiable uniforms. The uniform issue is just one of many issues, but also the easiest one to demonstrate, that shows that the Geneva Convention really doesn't apply to any Middle Eastern war at this time.

Whether or not the United States should be involved in any war against ISIS, whether such war is just or unjust, or whether the conduct of the war is moral, is an entirely different topic. The fact is that the various Law of War treaties that the U.S. is signatory to do not bind the U.S. at all since the opposing forces do not abide by them.

BRAVO TKGS, This says it all. End of Conversation.

PG · « **Reply #16 on:** December 22, 2015, 09:54:15 AM »

tkgs - thanks for the good points. In docuмentaries that I have seen, it is advertised that isis fights in their black uniforms. But, from their online videos they post, we can see that it is not the case. They fight in civilian clothing. And, the fire free zones you mention in veitnam sound similar to what Trump is proposing in syria. He has said he wants a "safe zone" for the refugees. So, what Trump might be preparing us for is the fact that in this fight we have to "shoot anything that moves". Because, we cannot tell the fighters apart from the civilians. And, the civilians are not innocent in this. They have to give in to all of isis fighters demands, or they get a bullet in the head. So, if they are alive, they are supporting isis, and they are part of the problem.

Being that we know isis is the israeli golem, it really might be a moral(positive) issue to fight them. I mean, russia is fighting them in syria, and the west(israel) hates it. So, this war in the middle east, which Trump did not initiate, and has opposed initiating, however still may need to be continued. I am certainly not going to rule it out as rc1953 does by saying it is unjust and case closed. Trump argues that modern weapons are simply to dangerous, and that we cannot allow them to fall into the wrong hands(which is a tired argument). But, I don't believe Trump will be arming isis while fighting isis. I have confidence in that, and that would be the big difference between past administrations. And, I don't put it past the west to arm isis with even greater weapons. Because, they have already given them chemical weapons, and isis has already used them. Trump is spot on on every other issue, and I think it is not a sin to give him the benefit of doubt.

It really makes me wonder why Rand Paul said it. And, I think the next thing we need in order to judge this Trump statement is what percentage of the isis fighters are mercenaries with families located outside of iraq and syria, and what percentage have their families with them and are local. Because, if the majority of the fighters are mercenaries whose families are located outside, then the statement is inaccurate, and uncalled for. It could even be deceptive. I mean, Trump talks non stop about "taking the oil"(which is a theft). So, my support of Trump is not blind or unconditional. I mean, Trump is known for the art of the deal. And, I will tell you, I am not making a deal with the devil in this election. But, so far, Trump looks good.

TKGS · « **Reply #17 on:** December 22, 2015, 10:38:59 AM »

I think Rand Paul said it because most people today are simply ignorant about the Geneva Convention. We constantly hear about how we have to obey the "laws of war" even if our enemy does not, and the Geneva Convention is typically cited as the legal authority for such comments.

Frankly, I think too many people have received their education about the Geneva Convention from Hogan's Heroes and 1950-1960s WWII movies. Most people who tell us what we cannot do because of the Geneva Convention have no idea what the Geneva Convention actually requires of signatory States. After all, the U.S. signed onto those treaties at a time when the U.S. Senate would never have ratified a treaty that required actions by the U.S. and not by other States. Unfortunately, after WWII, the elites in the U.S. decided that "we" have to set the example and started to sign onto things that essentially apply only to the U.S.

When I was in the army, training in the Laws of War was an annual requirement. I note that most the people telling us what the laws of war are today are politicians and media reporters who have never served in the military. Of course, the one exception is John McCain who is has a chip on his shoulder because he was a P.O.W. of a belligerent who did not abide by the Geneva Convention.

AJNC · « **Reply #18 on:** January 02, 2016, 01:37:27 AM »

Trump is certainly making the Left in the US nervous!

PG · « **Reply #19 on:** January 02, 2016, 01:09:32 PM »

Really, a Trump and Putin future tells us all that we need to know. Trump has said good things about Putin, and Putin has said good things about Trump. They will find a way to work together. And, that is a very good thing for the world. And, probably the most important thing. Because, all eyes are on china. And, Russia is positioned to greatly influence them. If the US and Russia have a good relationship, then we can also influence china from going in a wrong direction. Greed is really the name of that game. All of the details we do not know, and perhaps should not know. But Putin knows how to play the game. And, I believe that Trump does as well.

When I judge Trump, I judge what is in writing. On his website, all his positions are clearly presented, and that is really what matters in today's world. The only thing that makes me uneasy is how he wants to engage more in the south china sea. But, he knows the chinese better than I do. And, perhaps he knows that they are not as tough as they put on to be. And, he can call their bluff with no consequences.

PG · « **Reply #20 on:** January 03, 2016, 11:04:16 PM »

In a recent face the nation interview released today jan 3, Trump says that he is "not a fast trigger" and that nuclear weapons are a "last stance". If I recall correctly, the first question asked about Trump in the very first debate was regarding feeling safe with trump on the nuclear codes. And, I think that he has made it clear how he regards the use of our weaponry. Yes, he wants to make our military strong, but he also doesn't want to use it. And, that's okay with me. He also addressed a question about us spying on israel, and he does not oppose it. He said that these days with technology everyone can spy on everyone. It is unavoidable..