World News

Its quite blatantly obvious nobody who comkits atrocities in the name of the text actually reads the texts. If they did they wouldn't find time to do the atrocities or generally spread chaos.

The point is that every religion has problematic shit, because when they were made up society was less developed then now.

And back then when a new religion showed up, the major one usually tried to stamp it out with violence. So any new religion that wasn't also violent, got wiped out pretty quickly.

The problem with religion is the tiny percentage who are far right extremists insisting that rules from over a thousand years ago need to be followed by everyone, and exactly by their interpretation. Not the vast majority who take the general message but understand shits changed since it was written.

Like, you get that right?

I thought I was being clear, but lots of people don't seem to be getting it...

The rules of war aren't about perfection, they're very much a do not let perfect be the enemy of good, and filled with compromises to do less evil.

If you want protections for medical staff you have to clear a section of ground for them that isn't used for war.

It's important to realize these rules were agreed to in order to try to prevent total war. Where carpet bombs flattened entire cities like what happened in Dresden.

War is horrific. Those that wage war unleash hell. We cannot make war logically or compassionate. We can try to afford safety nets for those to help others and reduce harm in war. However, the rules do not elimt harm for "innocents." They simply offer a way to have less civilian casualties by doing things like not running a command center out of a hospital.

The Geneva convention says yes. It's it moral, no. However our current agreed upon rules for war would allow it.

This is actually a good question.

Law of War is often referred to as the law of armed conflict (LOAC). This is what is permissively legal to do, if you are engaged in conflict.

The Rules of Engagement (ROE) are directives regarding the exact circumstances United States (US) forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement.

Has the hostage takers used force such as firing a weapon to take the hostage? Did they fire at US forces? Did they deploy munitions of any type? Has there been an escalation of combat or have they disarmed? Is there an immediate threat to the hostage? Have they threatened to kill the hostage? Are they retreating or advancing? Are the hostages prisoners of war? Are they being provided the required treatment for POWs?

All of these and many more can determine the rules of engagement for US forces.

The ROE is separate to the rules of war and not all forces have the same methodology. In fact some nonUS forces may receive no training for LOAC or ROE.

Finally, the current interpretation post 9-11 is that those that do not follow the LOAC are not legally combatants and therefore do not have to be provided the protections that they would if they were legally combatants. So, if they engage in war in a way that does not follow the legal methods they may not hide behind the protections.

Why do you guys keep comparing what a terrorist organization does compared to a government?

If you are doing the same things as terrorists, then you are a terrorist organization and not a government.

Ahh, i see. Thanks.