Al-Qaida fails to honor the Geneva Convention!

[bored1]

According to news reports the Al-Qaida shot American Neil Roberts after he had fallen from his helicopter, So instead of taking him as a POW they just shoot him...www.sfgate.com This is in direct violation of the Geneva Convention.I quess they didnt read it......

 

[Guest]

Well then

Why don't we all just ignore it then. Just wondering what exactly your point was.

 

[lavender]

 

[Guest]

 

[Andreina]

bored1.... since when are terrorist groups part of the Geneva Conventions (GC)? If you post a thread like that please at least research what you post.
If terrorist groups would support the GC they would hardly be terrorist groups, would they? As far as I'm concerend only governements are bound by the GC, not groups as such.


Halo

 

[lavender]

 

[Weevil]

So what's the argument here? That when fighting a war you should be as bad, or worse, than your enemy?

 

[Guest]

 

[bored1]

So what's the argument here? That when fighting a war you should be as bad, or worse, than your enemy?

The only point I was trying to make was that the US was severely criticized for the treatment of the detainees in Cuba.......Im quite aware that the Al-Qaida are not signatories of the Geneva Convention.........I believe that there seems to be a double standard on the part of some organizations......The whole idea of having rules for war seems odd to me.Something only the west could think up.........But I agree with you weevil you must be nastier than your enemy......something the Western world has always been able to do.............Didnt think I would be pounded this bad

 

[Andreina]

you have to recognize that the GC were drawn up in a time when there was (virtually) no terrorist threat. back then it was politics dominated by realism. the states acted in their own interest. now it is much more liberalist/inter-dependent political situation.

back then you could say to state A: hey, don't do that to state B's prisoners. that's mean. stop it or we'll put an emargo up.
you can hardly say that to a terrorist group.

have you read von Clausewitz's book "On War" or Kissinger's "Diplomacy"? I can highly recommend those two.

Halo

 

[patient1]

I didn't know Al-Qaida were signatories to the Geneva Convention.

Learn something new every day, I guess.

Me either, & last I heard he fell out because he was shot, not the other way around as originally reported.

I don't think anyone is disputing the evils of Al-Qaida here.
Just because America opposes an evil enemy doesn't automatically make us righteous in all we do.

 

[bored1]

you have to recognize that the GC were drawn up in a time when there was (virtually) no terrorist threat. back then it was politics dominated by realism. the states acted in their own interest. now it is much more liberalist/inter-dependent political situation.

back then you could say to state A: hey, don't do that to state B's prisoners. that's mean. stop it or we'll put an emargo up.
you can hardly say that to a terrorist group.

have you read von Clausewitz's book "On War" or Kissinger's "Diplomacy"? I can highly recommend those two.

Halo

I admit that, No, I havnt read either book.......However I will pick up Kissingers...and give it a read..........Does he write like he talks?

 

[Azwed]

The only point I was trying to make was that the US was severely criticized for the treatment of the detainees in Cuba.......Im quite aware that the Al-Qaida are not signatories of the Geneva Convention.........I believe that there seems to be a double standard on the part of some organizations......The whole idea of having rules for war seems odd to me.Something only the west could think up.........But I agree with you weevil you must be nastier than your enemy......something the Western world has always been able to do.............Didnt think I would be pounded this bad

I am pretty sure weevil was being sarcastic but if i am putting words in his mouth please tell me.

The US is supposed to be better then the enemy. We are supposed to have the moral high ground and if we going around breaking treaties or even appearing to break treaties we don't look very good.

And before you go off saying how I am unamerican or how the prisoners weren't really being treated badly or whatever let me say let me say this.

I don't think the prisoners were being treated poory either, but to some it appeared they were being mistreated. The Bush administration handled the entire situation very poorly from a PR stand point. If the treaty says that you should do this, this and tist then you do this, and this. Even if something is only a technical violation of the treaty you still don't do it because of the appearance it generates.

Sometimes just the appearance that is generated by and act can be worse then the act itself. People can go off speculating and coming up with theories more easily when all they have to work off of is appearances.

The Bush administration had a chance to nip the entire situation in the bud very early if they had only thought ahead. Unfortunatly they did not and this entire mess of a situation was created.

 

[Starblayde]

back then it was politics dominated by realism. the states acted in their own interest. now it is much more liberalist/inter-dependent political situation.

back then you could say to state A: hey, don't do that to state B's prisoners. that's mean. stop it or we'll put an emargo up.
you can hardly say that to a terrorist group.
COLOR][/I]

Back then (and even before) it was still pretty co-dependant. Britain and France keeping tabs on Russia's influence over Turkey (Crimean War, 18...dammit...40s/50s i think) Piedmont/Sardina taking over the rest of Italy, Austria set up as Europe's 'policeman' by Britain France, Russia et al...

And virtually no terrorists.... what, perchance, was the trigger for WW1?