If the Taliban don’t wear uniforms, it doesn’t mean you get to ignore all rules of engagement and shoot people who look like civilians. It means you still fight under the rules and then charge them with war crimes when you finish. If you feel otherwise then pull out of the Geneva Conventions and stop pretending you’re more moral than you are.
The laws of war go both ways in many cases. (Not all). Often, that is exactly what it means. If the enemy is not signatory to the treaty, the protections do not apply to them. I wish we could outlaw war. War crimes are a completely different thing.
Afghanistan is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions 1-4 so the rules do apply here.
The government of Afghanistan ratified the Geneva Conventions in 1956 as a monarchy. The governmental system has changed seven times since then with insurgent forced under a system that is simultaneously not recognized by the international order and has not recognized the laws of war.
Your assertion is a massive jump and I have to wonder about your agenda here.
Under international law, Afghanistan is still bound by the treaties and their obligations regardless of what government comes after it. That’s the case with all governments even after coups and changes. Just because the Taliban so bad things doesn’t mean the US and other countries can break the international treaties on their end; the conventions even have provisions for how to handle one side breaking the laws (and it’s not to disregard the conventions entirely).
It’s not a massive jump to insist that countries actually adhere to treaties they signed. Minimizing civilian deaths is a worthy agenda, not sure why you’re trying to make it personal.
Mostly because they broke said norms and used that to kill my friends. The second you break those norms, you are not beholden to them. If you want protections of international law, you have to wear a uniform.
Again, the Geneva Conventions spell out what to do if one side doesn’t wear a uniform, and hint: it does NOT say throw all the conventions away and start bombing people without uniforms on. That’s how weddings and hospitals are blown up. Your agenda is clear and you should actually read the conventions and come back to us rather than go in circles.
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.
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.
If the Taliban don’t wear uniforms, it doesn’t mean you get to ignore all rules of engagement and shoot people who look like civilians. It means you still fight under the rules and then charge them with war crimes when you finish. If you feel otherwise then pull out of the Geneva Conventions and stop pretending you’re more moral than you are.
The laws of war go both ways in many cases. (Not all). Often, that is exactly what it means. If the enemy is not signatory to the treaty, the protections do not apply to them. I wish we could outlaw war. War crimes are a completely different thing.
Afghanistan is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions 1-4 so the rules do apply here.
The government of Afghanistan ratified the Geneva Conventions in 1956 as a monarchy. The governmental system has changed seven times since then with insurgent forced under a system that is simultaneously not recognized by the international order and has not recognized the laws of war.
Your assertion is a massive jump and I have to wonder about your agenda here.
Under international law, Afghanistan is still bound by the treaties and their obligations regardless of what government comes after it. That’s the case with all governments even after coups and changes. Just because the Taliban so bad things doesn’t mean the US and other countries can break the international treaties on their end; the conventions even have provisions for how to handle one side breaking the laws (and it’s not to disregard the conventions entirely).
It’s not a massive jump to insist that countries actually adhere to treaties they signed. Minimizing civilian deaths is a worthy agenda, not sure why you’re trying to make it personal.
Mostly because they broke said norms and used that to kill my friends. The second you break those norms, you are not beholden to them. If you want protections of international law, you have to wear a uniform.
Again, the Geneva Conventions spell out what to do if one side doesn’t wear a uniform, and hint: it does NOT say throw all the conventions away and start bombing people without uniforms on. That’s how weddings and hospitals are blown up. Your agenda is clear and you should actually read the conventions and come back to us rather than go in circles.
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.