“I no longer love blue skies. In fact, I now prefer gray skies. The drones do not fly when the skies are gray.” That’s what a young Pakistani boy named
Hint: You cannot actually back any of this up with any text and you are talking out of your ass. It’s impossible to find that which does not exist.
The text definitely covers how to handle uniformed combatant, ununiformed combatant, and mercenary POWs. It also places special importance on identification.
It does not provide protections in the conduct of indirect fires. In fact, as long as there is a military purpose, it’s not illegal to intentionally hit targets that will kill civilians. That’s defined as collateral damage.
You are welcome to provide some actual text to back up what you are attempting to convey. No more hints implying something you think is convincing. Here’s the link.
You are changing the argument. You said above repeatedly that Geneva Convention’s protections don’t apply when the enemy isn’t wearing uniforms, and your own link shows that yes they still apply. Glad you agree with me on that point.
You seem to think that intentional collateral damage is okay, and that’s simply disgusting, but that’s a completely different argument than the earlier one. That just sinks you down to the same level of terrorists.
I will simply finish with the fact that you do not understand why the laws of war exist. If we could outlaw war, we would. War is disgusting. The laws of war are agreements that minimize suffering with little tactical or strategic benefit. They are not intended to save civilians regardless of context or benefit.
I have not changed the argument. It started in the context of drone warfare. My own link does not say what you are claiming and you are yet to provide an actual line that supports your argument.
You are dancing around your claims. I will not respond further unless you cite and quote from an international agreement that the relevant parties are signatory to. This is a very basic thing you should be able to do. When you cannot, please walk away knowing you are slightly more knowledgeable on international law and the rules that govern military conflict.
My intent here wasn’t to be a gotcha or convince you that war is good. It’s simply to educate. I have had related discussions with Harvard legal professors and their frustrations with students not understanding them intent behind this legal framework. It’s certainly less understood now on both sides of the Ukraine conflict than it was during the GWOT bit even then it felt like an uphill battle.
The fact that you think laws of war are “not intended to save civilians” just demonstrates your stubborn ignorance of history and law. I’m not going to waste time teaching someone International Relations from scratch and distilling in depth topics into a Lemmy post that you’re just going to ignore since you’re so confidently incorrect and are ignoring anything that doesn’t confirm your pre-existing beliefs.
For someone who claims to have spoken to Harvard professors, that’s stunning ignorance you’re showing everyone. Go and read your own link because you clearly haven’t absorbed any of it, and are just emotional because you have soldier friends and wanna put their well being over those of civilians. Peace.
I knew you that fragile that you always needed to have the last word. Educate yourself on why the Geneva Conventions were created and what they were intended to solve. The fact that you think it wasn’t meant to spare civilians means you need to go back to school and start on page 1.
Edit: and then you go and edit your posts to pretend you’re less emotional.
Personal insults assuming that I’m not extremely educated on this topic and have made decisions based on these that were routed through a legal review. I actually find this a little entertaining. By all means, continue.
I’m not the one writing silly replies and then deleting and reposting new ones to fake sounding like the more enlightened one.
Nobody “extremely educated on this topic” would write something as breathtakingly dumb as claiming Geneva Conventions were never intended to save civilians. They’re centered on protections for civilians, non-combatants, the land of non-combatants, areas where wars are prohibited to protect civilians, and so on. It’s obvious to anyone who actually studied the topic that you’re BSing and a fraud. I don’t have to show you my international politics degree to call you out on it or paste in my papers on the topic because I know you won’t accept it no matter how much of the actual conventions I post. But you’re predictable; you’ll still insist on the last word and find a way to demean a stranger on the internet like me in the hopes that others around you think maybe you’re smart or knowledgeable because you claim you went toe-to-toe with someone at Harvard (conveniently without witnesses). Want me to clap?
Hint: You cannot actually back any of this up with any text and you are talking out of your ass. It’s impossible to find that which does not exist.
The text definitely covers how to handle uniformed combatant, ununiformed combatant, and mercenary POWs. It also places special importance on identification.
It does not provide protections in the conduct of indirect fires. In fact, as long as there is a military purpose, it’s not illegal to intentionally hit targets that will kill civilians. That’s defined as collateral damage.
You are welcome to provide some actual text to back up what you are attempting to convey. No more hints implying something you think is convincing. Here’s the link.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/protocol-additional-geneva-conventions-12-august-1949-and
You are changing the argument. You said above repeatedly that Geneva Convention’s protections don’t apply when the enemy isn’t wearing uniforms, and your own link shows that yes they still apply. Glad you agree with me on that point.
You seem to think that intentional collateral damage is okay, and that’s simply disgusting, but that’s a completely different argument than the earlier one. That just sinks you down to the same level of terrorists.
I will simply finish with the fact that you do not understand why the laws of war exist. If we could outlaw war, we would. War is disgusting. The laws of war are agreements that minimize suffering with little tactical or strategic benefit. They are not intended to save civilians regardless of context or benefit.
I have not changed the argument. It started in the context of drone warfare. My own link does not say what you are claiming and you are yet to provide an actual line that supports your argument.
You are dancing around your claims. I will not respond further unless you cite and quote from an international agreement that the relevant parties are signatory to. This is a very basic thing you should be able to do. When you cannot, please walk away knowing you are slightly more knowledgeable on international law and the rules that govern military conflict.
My intent here wasn’t to be a gotcha or convince you that war is good. It’s simply to educate. I have had related discussions with Harvard legal professors and their frustrations with students not understanding them intent behind this legal framework. It’s certainly less understood now on both sides of the Ukraine conflict than it was during the GWOT bit even then it felt like an uphill battle.
The fact that you think laws of war are “not intended to save civilians” just demonstrates your stubborn ignorance of history and law. I’m not going to waste time teaching someone International Relations from scratch and distilling in depth topics into a Lemmy post that you’re just going to ignore since you’re so confidently incorrect and are ignoring anything that doesn’t confirm your pre-existing beliefs.
For someone who claims to have spoken to Harvard professors, that’s stunning ignorance you’re showing everyone. Go and read your own link because you clearly haven’t absorbed any of it, and are just emotional because you have soldier friends and wanna put their well being over those of civilians. Peace.
Got it, so you can’t. I don’t expect you to change your mind in the middle of an argument but do please consider this in future reading.
I knew you that fragile that you always needed to have the last word. Educate yourself on why the Geneva Conventions were created and what they were intended to solve. The fact that you think it wasn’t meant to spare civilians means you need to go back to school and start on page 1.
Edit: and then you go and edit your posts to pretend you’re less emotional.
Personal insults assuming that I’m not extremely educated on this topic and have made decisions based on these that were routed through a legal review. I actually find this a little entertaining. By all means, continue.
I’m not the one writing silly replies and then deleting and reposting new ones to fake sounding like the more enlightened one.
Nobody “extremely educated on this topic” would write something as breathtakingly dumb as claiming Geneva Conventions were never intended to save civilians. They’re centered on protections for civilians, non-combatants, the land of non-combatants, areas where wars are prohibited to protect civilians, and so on. It’s obvious to anyone who actually studied the topic that you’re BSing and a fraud. I don’t have to show you my international politics degree to call you out on it or paste in my papers on the topic because I know you won’t accept it no matter how much of the actual conventions I post. But you’re predictable; you’ll still insist on the last word and find a way to demean a stranger on the internet like me in the hopes that others around you think maybe you’re smart or knowledgeable because you claim you went toe-to-toe with someone at Harvard (conveniently without witnesses). Want me to clap?
I have not modified or deleted any of my comments. Are you okay?