| Tripper |
05-17-2005 02:19 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdeyes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripper
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdeyes
do these asshats have the protection of the geneva convention ?
they arent part of any known military , so therefore they shouldnt be covered correct?
|
...You're a dumbass.
What do you mean "covered?" Like it's some kind of forcefield that stops a military force from harming you if you're under it? If any military did anything to them outside of the geneva convention regulations, then they themselves are comitting war crimes...The fact that these guys are operating outside of a military force means nothing. That would mean they are civilians, or terrorists or whatever....Doesn't give anyone the right to commit atrocities against them (Even if they do deserve it)....
The geneva convention doesn't "protect" anyone, it's just a set of guidelines to fight a conflict under, so you avoid committing "war crimes."
|
if they arent part of a structured military then they have no rights under the geneva convention. so it doesnt matter what happens to them on the battlefield. dumbass out
|
oOo: rolleyes:
You totally don't understand - The geneva convention wouldn't be able to protect them if they WERE in a structured military or not. It's irrelevant. It's all about the will of the people that would carry out the atrocities against them - because they'd get blamed for committing war crimes outside of the geneva convention - Much like Hitler's staff got for murdering civilian "undesireables."
If you're suggesting a structured military can do anything against them that they please, simply because they aren't in a military and therefore "have no rights under the geneva convention," then you're wrong. The people inflicting these war crimes against them will be convicted afterwards, for war crimes because they broke geneva convention regulations for killing civilians.
Do you understand? oOo: |
