Good start! An obvious truth, giving promise that, having laid the irrefutable foundation, you will advance to some intelligent and perceptive point. Yes, indeed, no doubt about it…one man’s meat is another man’s kindling.
In which we are disappointed. Such ceremonies as cremation are generally conducted in solemn ritual in America, dignified, mournful. Beery Uncle Fred doesn’t climb atop Aunt Maude’s casket and take a hearty whizz on her face. Precisely what do you mean to illuminate with this comparison? That Muslim burial customs are very different from our own? Thank you. Yes. We knew that.
This sentence reminds me of Mark Twain’s remark about literary Germans, who dive into the Atlantic Ocean of a sentence and emerge on the far shore with their verb in their mouth. What we do know is that you are baffled, but not passively flumoxxed, no, indeed, you offer your bafflement as evidence that somebody else must be wrong. I don’t understand, therefore, you are wrong.
No. 2+2=5 is a mistake. When people are likely to die as a result of an action, “oopsy!” just doesn’t cut it.
Arguing as to whether or not this violates the GC is like arguing whether the OK City bombing violated zoning regulations.
Flying Dutchman, you’re a moron. You purport to be analysing the “Geneva Convention”, but are unaware that there are in fact a few different treaties called the Geneva Conventions, along with other materials such as optional protocols to the Convention as well as a great deal of related law arising from different treaties, international custom and international jurisprudence.
The treaty you quote is Geneva Convention Three, the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, and of course only deals with prisoners of war. The relevant one here is Geneva Convention One, the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, article 17 of which states, in part:
In relation to your Article 2 argument, the Taliban were the government of Afghanistan until the US / Northern Alliance / Coalition attack in late 2001. Afghanistan was in fact a state party to the Conventions, and therefore Taliban armed forces would be bound by it in the ensuing conflict. Therefore, the US could arguably be bound to follow the Conventions in their actions in the conflict.
Even if it were held that the Taliban soldiers killed were not acting for a High Contracting Party to the GCs and thus the GCs did not apply, the Conventions aren’t all there is to international humanitarian law. The US’s actions would almost certainly be a violation of international customary law, for which the Geneva Conventions are an excellent source of expected norms.
I just wanna love everyone and smoosh you all up like a bunch of Care Bear-Sprittles…mmmmmmMMMMmmm…btw, it’s all been done before, get used to it…our ancestors did wherever you hail from
Not strictly true, either. Though savagery in war is the standard, there are exceptions.
In the Russo-Japanese War, the Japanese astounded the world with their care and compassion for wounded and captured Russian soldiers. Moscow newspaper reprinted letters home from wounded Russians testifying to such. Japanese soldiers would “adopt” a wounded Russian and take personal responsibility for nursing that soldier back to health.
The effect on Japan’s international prestige and diplomatic standing were enormous.
It’s quite easily explicable based on the political changes in Japan between 1904 and 1941. There’s not a lot of mystery there. But it sure was tragic.