“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
Every single bomb was accused of being against a civilian. That’s not hyperbole. Not one. It’s easy to claim your enemy bombs civilians when you don’t wear a uniform. That’s why it’s considered a war crime, not the other way around.
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.
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.
Every single bomb was accused of being against a civilian. That’s not hyperbole. Not one. It’s easy to claim your enemy bombs civilians when you don’t wear a uniform. That’s why it’s considered a war crime, not the other way around.
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