Rogue terror state violates Geneva Convention

[F. Marc de Piolenc]

measl at mfn.org wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
> 
> > mattd wrote:

> > Al-Quaeda is not a military force by any reasonable reckoning;
> 
> I don't know what your definition of military force is Marc, but any *group*
> of persons who are armed and engaged in common cause qualify as a military
> force in my book.

Okay - it DEFINITELY isn't a military force for Geneva purposes. How's
that? You're welcome to your definition, but it won't wash here.

> > it is a
> > criminal association whose victims are defenseless and innocent of any
> > involvement (pro or anti) in the cause that the criminal association
> > claims to espouse.
> 
> I assume you are referring to the WTC victims here.  Sorry, but they were not
> "innocent".  They, as participants in the selection of the rulers of this
> country, are 100% guilty of the many crimes perpetrated by the United States
> against other peoples.

We definitely differ here, and I disrespectfully submit that your line
of reasoning is that of a terrorist: who is not for me is against me. By
that "logic" everyone is fair game. And of course that's the purpose of
the doctrine: to justify murder. 

> As for AQ being a "criminal association": how do you arrive at this?  I
> suspect you get there by considering their acts to be outside of accepted
> behaviour (of any "lawful" society). 

My reasoning is simpler and less legalistic than that which you impute
top me. Murder is a crime. These guys conspired to commit murder, and
did so. They are criminals, and associated in crime; therefore they are
a criminal association.

> What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, ya?

Nonsense. No reasonable definition of criminal conduct would put the US
government and al-Quaeda in the same category.

Marc de Piolenc