yemenis defiant against arab coalition jets

[500]

There are exceptions to every rule. The powerful is never punished. Americans dropped napalm on Vietnam villages in the 1960s and 1970s and they never got punished.

These stories are gross exaggeration by Soviet and leftist propaganda. The real slaughter was in Afghanistan and now in Syria:

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Yes, the use of incendiary weapons against populated areas is illegal.

View attachment 470235

The convention on use of incendiary weapons is in force since 1983.
Nuclear Weapons are not conventional weapons, and not covered by this ”law”.

As Trump said, families of soldiers who cook for soldiers are legit targets. They are home front. Soldiers can't fight without support of civilians. They live with soldiers. So they die too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_front

 

[Ceylal]

Yes, the use of incendiary weapons against populated areas is illegal.

View attachment 470235

The convention on use of incendiary weapons is in force since 1983.
Nuclear Weapons are not conventional weapons, and not covered by this ”law”.

@A.P. Richelieu , have just woke up from a coma? The convention was introduced to combat the use of napalm..Napalm was replaced by deadlier weapons not covered by the convention..beside the only that abide by it, is the one who don’t have it..for others , it is game..

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Nazis thought they could conquer the world with their technology and fire power. Nazis thought they could rule the world with their thousand year Reich. Guess what happened to them?

They could not remain defiant to air power.
Fire Power won.

 

[Ceylal]

These stories are gross exaggeration by Soviet and leftist propaganda. The real slaughter was in Afghanistan and now in Syria:

View attachment 470245
View attachment 470243
View attachment 470244

Little Sharon, enough of maps and graphs, you start looking and smelling like Seif el Arab..

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

As Trump said, families of soldiers who cook for soldiers are legit targets. They are home front. Soldiers can't fight without support of civilians. They live with soldiers. So they die too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_front

And what makes You think Trump has a clue about anything?

Families are not legit targets, if they simply cook.

Families living in an army base are inside a legit target.

Soldiers who live with their family while on active duty are military targets.
They are putting their family at risk.

Soldiers who live on an army base, and go home to their family on leave, become civilians, and are no longer a military target.

@A.P. Richelieu , have just woke up from a coma? The convention was introduced to combat the use of napalm..Napalm was replaced by deadlier weapons not covered by the convention..beside the only that abide by it, is the one who don’t have it..for others , it is game..

This was introduced because of the fire bombing of Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo.
Napalm was not used in either.
Nuclear Weapons are handled by other parts of the convention.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Families are not legit targets, if they simply cook.

Sure they are. Food is as important as bullets. Can soldiers fight without food? Civilians who cook for soldiers live with soldiers. They are home front. Home front is legit target.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_front

They could not remain defiant to air power.
Fire Power won.

Nope. They lose because they are evil. They genocide Jews and Chinese.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Sure they are. Food is as important as bullets. Can soldiers fight without food? Civilians who cook for soldiers live with soldiers. They are home front. Home front is legit target.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_front



Nope. They lose because they are evil. They genocide Jews and Chinese.

Please show where in the Geneva Convention where it says that it is legitimate to target civilians!
It is legitimate to target Soldiers.
Presence of civilians generally does not protect a military target from attack.
That is why killing civilian cooks when you attack an army base is not a war crime.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Please show where in the Geneva Convention where it says that it is legitimate to target civilians!
It is legitimate to target Soldiers.
Presence of civilians generally does not protect a military target from attack.
That is why killing civilian cooks when you attack an army base is not a war crime.

Civilians who live with soldiers are legit targets. Civilians who cook for soldiers live with soldiers. There is an old Chinese saying. Dao Jian Bu Zhang Yan. Swords and arrows don't grow eyes. Bombs will kill civilians if civilians live with soldiers. And that is perfectly legit.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Civilians who live with soldiers are legit targets. Civilians who cook for soldiers live with soldiers. There is an old Chinese saying. Dao Jian Bu Zhang Yan. Swords and arrows don't grow eyes. Bombs will kill civilians if civilians live with soldiers. And that is perfectly legit.

Nope, if you enter an Army base, sneak into an appartment where there is a civilian woman preparing rice, and cut her throat, you have committed a war crime.
If she attacks you with a knife, she becomes a legit target.

If You fire an artillery shell at a canteen filled with soldiers, and kills a woman cooking rice inside the canteen, you have not committed a war crime.

You are confusing killing with targetting. They have different meaning.
Targetting a civilian means that you identify someone as a civilian, and decide to kill the civilian.
Attacking a military target is not targetting a civilian, even if you happen till kill any civilian present in the military target.

Again, show where in the Geneva Convention there is support for your view?
Your own personal opinion has zero value.