Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The GC basically governs how to treat civilians and captured soldiers. Nothing that I've read of it pertains to this case.Wouldn't that fall under the same rule requiring combatants on foot to identify themselves?No, I don't want your link to some website that editorializes.
I want you to show me where in the Geneva Conventions it is stated that unmarked warplanes are a no-no.
Props for that...it doesn't. I don't think it is covered in the rules of war, either.i didn't have a dog in that fight my assertion was the attack was intentional as was the use of unmarked aircraft...I'm sure there are rules that govern the markings of planes but i don't know if it is contained in the geneva convention
The GC basically governs how to treat civilians and captured soldiers. Nothing that I've read of it pertains to this case.Wouldn't that fall under the same rule requiring combatants on foot to identify themselves?No, I don't want your link to some website that editorializes.
I want you to show me where in the Geneva Conventions it is stated that unmarked warplanes are a no-no.
Circumstantial evidence proves nothing.
the piolits of the planes confessed...
Next we will learn that because some people think Bush was behind 9/11 that is proof that Bush was behind 9/11.
As conspiracy theories go this one is very lame and really only keeps alive the propaganda that the Jews are responsible for everything that is bad in the world.
the israeli government was responsible for the attack on the liberty...the everything bad in this world.....jew... blah blah stuff are your words and the propaganda
The GC basically governs how to treat civilians and captured soldiers. Nothing that I've read of it pertains to this case.Wouldn't that fall under the same rule requiring combatants on foot to identify themselves?
Combatants are required to be clearly identifiable. That's how GW argued that Al Queda doesn't qualify for Geneva protections, since they refuse to wear uniforms or identify themselves
Put on your glasses JillianThe GC basically governs how to treat civilians and captured soldiers. Nothing that I've read of it pertains to this case.
Combatants are required to be clearly identifiable. That's how GW argued that Al Queda doesn't qualify for Geneva protections, since they refuse to wear uniforms or identify themselves
link?
you're confusing the requirement of identifiable with marking air craft... and there are differing interpretations as to whether the geneva protections should apply...
but as for aircraft:
now i might be wrong, but that doesn't look marked. perhaps someone with more expertise on this subject than you or i should comment.
i also want to add that it gives me the warm fuzzies to see all the anti-semites who think it was a "jewish conspiracy"...
damn, if jews are so powerful, how come BS propaganda like that is still circulated? you know, given that jews cowed the american govt and military enough for israel to go unpunished for its myriad of sins.
yeah... and there was a huge planned demolition in the middle of one of the busiest places in the world and no one noticed it being set up.
yeppers...
Ah, but the Israelis weren't combatants.The GC basically governs how to treat civilians and captured soldiers. Nothing that I've read of it pertains to this case.Wouldn't that fall under the same rule requiring combatants on foot to identify themselves?
Combatants are required to be clearly identifiable. That's how GW argued that Al Queda doesn't qualify for Geneva protections, since they refuse to wear uniforms or identify themselves
Typical zionist jew response to everything.i also want to add that it gives me the warm fuzzies to see all the anti-semites who think it was a "jewish conspiracy"...
It doesn't? What's that (old) Air Force marking on the wing, then?The GC basically governs how to treat civilians and captured soldiers. Nothing that I've read of it pertains to this case.
Combatants are required to be clearly identifiable. That's how GW argued that Al Queda doesn't qualify for Geneva protections, since they refuse to wear uniforms or identify themselves
link?
you're confusing the requirement of identifiable with marking air craft... and there are differing interpretations as to whether the geneva protections should apply...
but as for aircraft:
now i might be wrong, but that doesn't look marked. perhaps someone with more expertise on this subject than you or i should comment.
BS homo! I see myself as American and only American! But I will combat antisemitic bullshit when I see it! So go fuck yourself!
its not anti-semitism.to be critical of the israeli government anymore than it is anti-American to criticize the American government...don't pretend
That might be true, but it is antisemitism to buy into every back-water theory about Jews no matter how insane they might be!
My last post in another useless thread!
Jillian/Ravi have you even BOTHERED to search for info on the USS Liberty? You REALLY should and by all means do so with a critical eye but I think the more you look the more you won't like what you find.
Typical zionist response.Jillian/Ravi have you even BOTHERED to search for info on the USS Liberty? You REALLY should and by all means do so with a critical eye but I think the more you look the more you won't like what you find.
Have you? Ya brain dead prick! Doubtful, except from stormfront, kkk.com and davidduke.com!
