Nashwan, I'm not trying to be mean or patronizing or anything. I have tried to say that these things are really complex. I know people who have spend half their life pondering over these questions and still they cant say exactly what the law is in some cases. Most of these rules are open to interpretation, and I can understand how you feel that you have support by interpreting the conventions in one way or the other. But it is more complicated than that. You cant just open a lawbook and look at paragraph 1 where it says "It is forbidden to destroy property" and go "AHA, I'm right, here is the proof!", and then fail to keep reading down to paragraph 2 where it says "except in these circumstances …". This is pretty much exactly what you are doing right now with this Geneva convention discussion. You just cant grab some quotes from some website and paste it here as some kind of proof. You have to realize that it is more complicated than that. Let me try to give you an example. I understand that you feel that you are right, and I understand that you feel that you have found evidence on various websites that support your views. Now can you please acknowledge the fact that international law just might be more complicated than that. That sometimes it does not matter what a charter says because the charter might not be applicable, or that even if a charter by its wordings is applicable that doesnt mean that it is applicable. That is because the line between politics and international law is sometimes impossible to spot. Take your fourth Geneva convention and ask yourself how it has been applied in Afghanistan. Now, using your logic, and the logic presented on the websites you have quoted, that convention should really be applicable there too right? But yet somehow it isnt. That is because these things are more complicated than you think.
Now I have asked you time and time again to give up this legal analysis, but you just keep on with it. Cant you please acknowledge the fact that this is not your area of expertise? I mean, I dont go around telling people how to solve complicated mathematical problems or how to do some chemical analysis of some substance do I?
When you retreat to arguments like "your bizarre legal theories doesnt really matter" you are in fact saying that "hey, I havent got a clue here, maybe you are right about what the law says, but I dont care and it doesnt matter because the Pals are right and the Israelis are wrong". Fine, you can hold that opinion, but you have to realize that you have in fact accepted the fact that the Israelis have the law on their side in this conflict, and you are reduced to arguing that the Pals have the moral right or whatever.
