--- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 1/4/07 9:22:34 A.M. Central Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > The signatories are expected to > treat EVRYONE as though they wre signatories unless the other side violates > them. > > > > Ah, so Al Qaeda doesn't violate the Geneva Convention, thus are protected by > it. Numerous civilian targets with the intent to kill civilians, and the > kidnapping of civilians, Richard Pearl, Nicholas Berg et al beheaded. This is > > adherence to the Geneva convention?Using civilians as human shields, no > uniforms > to distinguish them from civilians. Forced religious conversions at the > barrel of a gun. So you think they deserve the best treatment society can > guarantee so we don't offend them? Rules for war are only relevant if both > sides > observe them. The purpose of war is to destroy your enemy's capacity to make > war and force him to submission. If one side chooses not to observe the > rules > agreed to then the other side should not be bound to the rules. Al Qaeda has > chosen not to observe any rules but to take advantage of any rules we > choose > to observe. >
That might be, but the rules are for OUR benefit, not theirs, both in order to protect us in future conflicts with people who might be more tempted to violate the rules with US because we already violated them AND because it is a vey bad thing for people to do such stuff, and to build it into the rules institutionalizes such dysfunction.
