Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => World War III - Chapter 2 => Topic started by: PG on December 18, 2015, 02:07:25 PM
-
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?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbYeG5n7k6g - 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.
-
Jews aren't doing anything. The media is calling IS "Da'esh" because that's the Arabic acronym - Dawla Islamiya fi-Iraq was-Sham - but it sounds close to an Arabic word meaning "stomp out", if I remember correctly.
Because IS/ISIL/Daësh is not a tangible, recognized state by ANY party (nor will it ever be), the Geneva convention doesn't apply. At all. We could attack ISIS, but we would be better off just attacking the terrorists. The 7 year old with an AK is without a doubt only there because they'd be killed if they weren't. They don't have a choice. The terrorists defecting to Syria to join them DO.
-
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.
-
The war is unjust over there because we went in for the wrong reasons and not even the right country (there were no WMDs, Bin Laden was in Pakistan and 15/19 September 11th hijackers were Saudi)
ISIS is not a group of US-paid hired mercenaries, they're a terrorist group that exists because of the power vacuum currently in Iraq and Syria largely because of the West.
We are to the Middle East what a daily carton of cigarettes is to the human body - only there to make it all worse.
-
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.
-
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.
What about the military equipment left behind by the US and
deliberately falls into the hands of ISIS. Same with all those
Ford and Toyota Pickup trucks. All purchased by our State
Department and run through Turkey.
I once heard this term that was stated by President Truman,
perpetual war for perpetual peace. Truman was a 33rd
degree freemason.
-
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
-
The war is unjust over there because we went in for the wrong reasons and not even the right country (there were no WMDs, Bin Laden was in Pakistan and 15/19 September 11th hijackers were Saudi)
ISIS is not a group of US-paid hired mercenaries, they're a terrorist group that exists because of the power vacuum currently in Iraq and Syria largely because of the West.
We are to the Middle East what a daily carton of cigarettes is to the human body - only there to make it all worse.
ISIS is a group of US-paid hired mercenaries. Follow the money.
-
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.
-
My assessment of the previous Republican debate that all
the candidates for President in 2016. they all agreed for more
wars in the middle east including shooting down Russian Jets.
There is absolutely no candidates talk peace and solving situations
without more war and more bƖσσdshɛd.
The truth is there was relative peace in the middle east before the
coming of the European Jews after WW2 and renamed Palestine to
Israel. In 1900 you could visit any Christian site at the time of the
Ottoman Empire without being killed nor molested
These present wars are caused by the International Bankers based
in London and New York. They have control of the US Government
and the military. And this includes NATO.
The goal is to gain control of the natural resources such as oil, and
natural gas.
See my previous post where the ISIS fighters are coming from.
The graph came from Veteranstoday.com. They are coming from
all over the world. Not just the middle east. They are all hired
mercenaries paid by the International Bankers.
The countries they come from have high unemployment and
poverty, all caused by the International Bankers.
-
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.
-
erase.
-
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.
-
rc1953 - don't talk down at me, this has not been done for oil. And, I don't have time for bets.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Trump is certainly making the Left in the US nervous!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvGS31t5vOA
-
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.
-
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..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrbE-2M-aNE