The Geneva Convention was used to put in place "rules for warfare" that were to be shared by civilized nations in actual warfare. The rules were never meant to apply to criminals or terrorists. Even then, there were exceptions specifically given for treatment of those playing "outside the rules". If, for example, you were caught in the act of spying or warfare without a uniform, you could just be shot ... end of story.
Terrorists play by a different set of rules called "asymmetric warfare". They play to the weakness of the rules of whoever they attach. Civilians are fair game as are women and children. Poison of any kind, weapons of any kind, and religious targets are fair game.
To expect one to use the rules of the Geneva Convention to apply to one side but not to the other is to defend oneself with one hand tied behind your back.
Terrorists do not exist in a vacuum. They are fed, housed, financed, and equipped by a different type of terrorist who doesn't actually pull the trigger. All of which need to be identified and dealt with harshly.
The nation of Iran, for example, should not be allowed to exist in it's present form.
First of all, please explain this total non sequitur:
"The nation of Iran, for example, should not be allowed to exist in it's present form."
Nothing that you said before that, has anything at all to do with Iran. So what in the world are you talking about them suddenly for?
As for the rest of it...
The Geneva and other related accords do NOT say "on the other hand, if the other guy misbehaves first, then all bets are off, and you can do whatever you like."
So your argument that because terrorists (which are NOT defined by anyone save those being attacked) are not directly specified as combatants or innocents under the accords, that we can pretend WE aren't obligated to behave according to the laws, is completely false.
I know it feels good to pretend you can be immoral as long as you are the SECOND person to do it, but really, that's something most people should have learned is BS, by the time they became adults.
After all, it's against the law to steal. If someone steals from you, however, you are NOT allowed to therefore go to their place and steal from THEM. If someone kills your friend, it is NOT legal for you to go to their home and kill them in cold blood. If someone abuses your child, it is NOT okay in any sense at all, for you to abuse theirs.
You should look up the definition of "non sequitur".
The post is about appropriate response to terrorism. It is also about asymmetric warfare. Iran is the largest, most well known, and overall worst sponsor of terrorism in the world. They, by definition, are engaging in asymmetric warfare (I guess you need to look that up too!) by supplying the food, shelter, money, training, and weapons to the terrorists (do you see the connection now?). Iran and the other sponsors of terrorism are engaging in war with the Western World without following the rules of the Geneva Convention by seeking out weakness and exploiting them in the most murderous ways possible. They hide in schools and Mosques, store weapons in hospitals, attack by blowing up civilians. The 'normal' rules of war should not apply to those who do not abide by them.
Just because you don't understand a post doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
Iran is a monster and should be treated as one. The terrorist groups who are rampaging across the Middle East and parts of Africa should be exterminated as vermin. Don't see a connection? Many do.
You made no mention of Iran in your opening remarks about terrorism.
You laid zero groundwork, such as accusing Iran of either sponsoring terror, or of supporting asymmetric warfare methods. That is why your post included a no sequitur.
Thank you for correcting your error, after the fact, as I requested.
By the way, if YOU actually look up the meaning of non sequitur, you will learn that it does NOT mean "therefore the statement is false," it simply means that the writer failed, within their narrative, to prepare in any way for the statements made.
So your sarcasm is both inaccurate and misguided.
Terrorists play by a different set of rules called "asymmetric warfare". They play to the weakness of the rules of whoever they attach. Civilians are fair game as are women and children. Poison of any kind, weapons of any kind, and religious targets are fair game.
To expect one to use the rules of the Geneva Convention to apply to one side but not to the other is to defend oneself with one hand tied behind your back.
Terrorists do not exist in a vacuum. They are fed, housed, financed, and equipped by a different type of terrorist who doesn't actually pull the trigger. All of which need to be identified and dealt with harshly.
Again. This does NOT answer what I pointed out. The conventions DO NOT support your contention that torture and other terrorist acts, nor any of the other acts which they declare are not to be done, are okay in response to someone else doing them.
If you want to proclaim that you support entirely relative morality, and no rule of law, that's fine. Just don't pretend you are doing something else while you do so.
