You were talking about the "fourth Geneva convention". There is no such thing. There is a fourth protocol to the 1949 Geneva convention, though.
What number does the 1949 convention come on the list?
There are five conventions and protocols related to Geneva, they are (in chronological order):
Amelioration of the condition of the wounded on the field of battle
-from 1864
Geneva protocol for the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating gas, and for bacteriological methods of warfare
-from 1928
Convention between the United States of America and other powers, relating to prisoners of war
-from 1929
Geneva convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war
-from 1949
Convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological and toxin weapons and their destruction
-from 1975
Fourth?
Regardless, it is called the fourth geneva convention by almost everybody. There is no country called Britain, it is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but if I say Britain, you know what I mean, don't you?
Anyway, I thought you were actually talking about the fourth geneva convention when you said fourth geneva convention...silly me huh? Instead you were talking about the fourth protocol to the geneva convention.
That's how everybody refers to it. You claimed knowledge of international law, so I naturally assumed you too would have heard of it. Find a press release or speech where it is called something other than the Fourth Geneva Convention.
If you want to go back into the international law debate...go right ahead, there are several questions in those links I provided that you have forgotten to answer...
Fire away.
Irrelevant to the discussion....
The views and aims of the leaders of of one of the sides in a war are irrelevant to a discussion regarding the cause of a war?
Is that like saying Osama bin Laden's views are irrelevant to Sept 11th? and the war in Afghanistan? Or Hitlers views are irrelevant to the start of WW2?
If Ben Gurion, who led Israel, and the Jewish forces before the founding of Israel, says that he regards partition as a stepping stone to conquering the whole of Palestine, and then his forces go on to do exactly that, it's irrelevant?
It took me a few posts, but now I do understand the game
What game? When I see someone posting something that is very biased, I usually post something in response, giving the alternative view. Anybody with little knowledge of the subject seeing your summation would come away with a rather incomplete picture.
You have several relatives on here and AGW
I don't think so, I come from a very small family
Seriously Badger, you posted a very one sided summary of the history of Israel, I posted some opposing views.
