[GrandEagle]

When the islamofascists start acting as soldiers, instead of murdering animals, then the GC can be applied.

I have no idea is Afghanistan is a signatory to the Geneva convention or not. If so, Constitutionally we are bound to abide by it. A ratified treaty is the law of the land and those military members not abiding by it are in violation of the law and their oath to uphold the Constitution. The LAST thing you want is the military making up their own rules as they go.

Cordially,
GE

[reluctantwarrior]

First. don't assume this video exists and is true IE. I can edit and photo shop anyhting to look like a war crime
and second the PSYOP message has been in use for over two years, I came up with it when we were going after Taliban in Zabol province we printed it on leaflets and also braodcast it on the ludspeakers from helicopters. it really pissed them off and they would come out and fight after we used this message

[Frank_Discussion]

My understanding is that the GC is applied to those who fight as soldiers, wear indentifiable insignia, and general comport themselves as troops. The Taliban does not qualify.

I do agree that GC rules do exist, and we do generally abide by them. When our enemies disregard them, they reap what they sow.

[Safetgiver]

Afghanistan may well be a signatory. Taliban terrorists are NOT as they aren't a country. Afghanistan has a soveriegn government, remember?

[ArmyTeach]

The Taliban are not the Afghan army. The Taliban are not 1)uniformed members of a 2)national army with a 3)recognizable chain of command, all stipulations under the Geneva Accords. Nor are the Taliban signatories to the Geneva Accords. My undertstanding is that any kind of terrorist of insurgent is not covered. They are illegal combatants going about committing heinous crimes and then pleading protection to which they are not entitled..

[LouD]

I have no idea is Afghanistan is a signatory to the Geneva convention or not.

Your argument is spurious. In addition to all the other reasons why the GC does not apply to these thugs: Taliban fighters (not soldiers) are fighting against the democratically elected government of Afghanistan - therefore, whether or not Afghanistan is a signatory of the GC is irrelevant.

[FreedomCalls]

If so, Constitutionally we are bound to abide by it. A ratified treaty is the law of the land and those military members not abiding by it are in violation of the law and their oath to uphold the Constitution. The LAST thing you want is the military making up their own rules as they go.

But we would be adhering to the GC if we did not apply its provisions to those who are not abiding by its rules. For it clearly states when they should be applied and when not. In this case, abiding by the GC means not granting certain privileges to the Taliban who according to the GC itself have not earned it.

[jjmcgo]

The Taliban is not the Army of Afghanistan. That army is fighting alongside our troops, against the non-governmental Taliban crime and terror group.