Date: 2006-09-20 04:53 am (UTC)
Wow, I have never seen a greater lack of comprehension in my life. It's really impressive how you're completely bending or misreading the words and trying to make them fit someplace they don't even come close to. Let me guess, you're a lawyer or a politician, right? Because everything you said there is really a lot of bull and makes no logical sense at all.

Regular armed forces wear uniforms, so that one is out. Persons who accompany the armed forces do not engage in combat, they also must have armed forces i.e. a regular army, to accompany; so that one is out too. As for number 3, they have had time to organize, so that one doesn't apply, obviously. Also that rule does not apply to attacks against an occupying force.

And again, you are NOT bound by ANY articles of the Geneva convention if the enemy does not abide by it. What part of that don't you understand? That rule has been in there since day one to try and force both sides to abide, because otherwise, the side that does not abide has an advantage over the other.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

July 2025

S M T W T F S
  12 3 4 5
6 7 8910 1112
13 141516 171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Most Popular Tags