Does the geneva convention really restrain the united states from killing ISIS and their families(that they use as human shields BTW) as Rand Paul recently claimed in response to Trumps recent proposal during the debate?

- two minute video from debate

I did a quick read into the geneva conventions on wikipedia, and I am not convinced that they do.  Here is why -

"The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions.[12]"

Does ISIS(islamic STATE in iraq and syria - the location where we will not follow the convention) "accept and apply" the provisions of the conventions?  The answer is no.  They in fact do the polar opposite.  Perhaps this is the reason that they(the тαℓмυdists/zionists running the media) have decided to changed the name of ISIS to "Gaesh".  They want us to adopt their new name because it doesn't claim the status of "statehood".  In which case, we could not attack their families under this principle of the convention -  

"For example, it(geneva convention) would apply to conflicts between the Government and rebel forces, or between two rebel forces, or to other conflicts that have all the characteristics of war but that are carried out within the confines of a single country(iraq and or syria = both convention signatories I am assuming). A handful of individuals attacking a police station would not be considered an armed conflict subject to this article, but only subject to the laws of the country in question.[12]"

This is how the тαℓмυdists work.  They don't believe in the "spirit", only the "law".  And, in the "law", there are loopholes.  So, playing their game, I think that the u.s. and Trump have this loophole in the law of the geneva conventions.  But, we have to control the narrative.  We are fighting "ISIS", not "Gaesh".  And, ISIS is a "state".  So, Trump knows what he is doing.  Trump says, these are "monsters", not "masterminds".  

And, if we kill "ISIS" families(the 7 year old with an ak47 and their multiple sex wives/baby machines), we will be killing the enemy families in and of a non signatory state that does not "accept and apply the provisions" of the conventions.

Look into this if you will.  And, if Trump turns out to be correct, then Rand Paul is doing a huge disservice to the american people.  Perhaps more so than the other obvious chump candidates.  I say this because Paul is not obvious, and that makes him more dangerous.   And, it makes me wonder if this is the role that Rand Paul is supposed to play.  Which is, the attack Trump role.   Because, that is all he has been doing from day one.

ISIS and ISIL and other radical groups are actually hired mercenaries
and highly paid by the U.S. and the Coalition forces to bring down the
Assad government. I read that they come from 86 countries.
The main reason the oil pipe line being built to carry oil from
Saudi Arabia and planned to be built through Syria north
to European destinations. Assad refuses to allow the pipe line
into Syria. The other reasons is that the Israelis want the Assad
government replaced because he is not a friend of Israel.
The U.S. Government and the coalition are too addicted to
war and killing the innocent does not bother them. They have
no conscience of what they are doing.
This is why the war in the middle east is considered an unjust
war by a well formed Catholic conscience.
The shootings in San Bernardino has to be a fαℓѕє fℓαg because
most Muslims knows the truth about ISIS.

ISIS and ISIL and other radical groups are actually hired mercenaries
and highly paid by the U.S. and the Coalition forces to bring down the
Assad government. I read that they come from 86 countries.
The main reason the oil pipe line being built to carry oil from
Saudi Arabia and planned to be built through Syria north
to European destinations. Assad refuses to allow the pipe line
into Syria. The other reasons is that the Israelis want the Assad
government replaced because he is not a friend of Israel.
The U.S. Government and the coalition are too addicted to
war and killing the innocent does not bother them. They have
no conscience of what they are doing.
This is why the war in the middle east is considered an unjust
war by a well formed Catholic conscience.
The shootings in San Bernardino has to be a fαℓѕє fℓαg because
most Muslims knows the truth about ISIS.

An another issue I want to add is that ISIS never attacks Israel
and the IDF. It is well docuмented that wounded ISIS soldiers
are taken care of in Israeli Hospitals and go back to fight
an another day.
This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that ISIS is a US and
a coalition force construct.
All we get from our leaders and the media is lies after lies.
Because they are handed a script and expected to read it or
lose their jobs.

Where ISIS mercenaries are coming from.

It is not all from the middle east. It is all over the world

Map

http://i.alalam.ir/news/Image/Inner-Media/2015/12/17/alalam_635859646149583969_25f_4x3.jpg

RC1953 - you posted earlier - "This is why the war in the middle east is considered an unjust
war by a well formed Catholic conscience. "

And, it is easy to say that.  That has been my opinion for a long time now.  But, I am reconsidering it.  I am reconsidering it because of Trump.  

We are at a crossroads, and I am paying close attention to Trump and his proposals.  I agree with him on many things, and it earns him respect and my  trust to a degree.  I agree with him on things that I understand.  The things that I do not fully understand and agree with, doesn't mean I will disagree with.  Because, our situation is so complicated, and our politicians have to play the game.  Russia is playing "the game", and thwarting israel in their plans and moves.  Trump is playing the game, and I think this comment falls into that category.  

This new kill ISIS family members comment is one of those areas that I would consider myself not qualified to pass judgment.  I do not have the intel or facts.  But, I know that the west has created ISIS.  What concerns me is if I can in good conscience vote for Trump.  Because, that aside, I think can vote for him.  

Now, we have Rand Paul with the fear porn that Trump is proposing war crimes against the geneva convention.  And, that is a serious claim.  Just looking into it, that doesn't appear to be true.  Now is that the option that I want(kill isis families)?  No.  But, does mean that it is an option not allowed on the military discussion table?  I don't think so.  And, that is what is important.  

This proposal may even be similar to what russia is currently doing.  Russia is dropping bombs with conviction.  The US has been dropping bombs to destroy assads syria infrastructure.  They haven't been fighting ISIS.  

Trump said in the alex jones interview that his reasons for being a "hawk" in the middle east to the degree that he is(which is not a great degree at all compared to the rest) is because the weapons and getting to powerful.  And, we know how he feels about nuclear threats.  He has the greatest respect for nuclear bombs, and will be very cautious/careful.  

This kill isis family comment would be very difficult to swallow if we didn't already know for sure that Trump has been against all of the wars and regime changes in the middle east from day one.  So, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, that dropping "big" bombs on ISIS and their families is a last resort.  That means to me, that first comes not giving ISIS weapons(which I think Trump is smart enough not to do).  And, a last resort if things along that line don't halt them, he will drop some big bombs.  

That to me is legitimate, because we do have a growing problem with jihad(in the US and abroad).  I am really beginning to think this.  There is a radical muslim issue in the US and Europe.  And, their life-source is their middle east behavior.  They share the same ideology.  And, if you want to crush their spirit throughout the world, I think you have to cut it off at its roots.  That means rendering the rest of the muslims scattered throughout our western countries hopeless when it comes to sharia.  And, if Trump is willing to be that hard on them in a part of the world that is not an immediate direct threat to the uneducated layman, then that means he will be hard on them here at home.  And, I support that, because I do not want a sharia threat in america.  US muslims are lying when they say they support freedom of speech and all the rest.  They will change their tune after they have enough babies and numbers in a collapsed america.  In which case, I do not support arming our females to fight them like the kurds have done(ISIS flees from female fighters).

It is a fine line, and I think it may be crossed if Trump begins to make "promises" to kill isis families in the middle east.  So far he has not made any "promises" in the middle east that are realistically against a well formed catholic conscience.  Each president starts on a clean slate.  And, that as well means you have to withdraw from the region in a responsible manner.  

RC1953 - you have your facts wrong.  Rand Paul does not propose shooting down russian jets.  And, neither does Trump.  The rest of the candidates do, but I am not talking about them.  One cannot vote for them.  The only two that I can see one voting for are Paul or Trump.  And, the rest of what you said I agree with, but that is not the topic at hand.  

I have answered all of your questions plus more. I bet you did not
know that ISIS and other private mercenaries armies fighters
actually comes from worldwide. They do it for the money because
where they come from suffers Hugh unemployment and poverty.
most of these mercenaries are unmarried and single.
If they have families, It would be wrong to target them also.
If our world was ruled by a Catholic Conscience formed by the
social teachings of the Church. These wars would not have
happened. Nor the refugee problems would also never happened.
All of this is a product of an unjust wars for the real purpose of theft
of natural resources such as oil and natural gas.

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.