Indian Army killed a Kashmiri Muslim

[dray]

Technically, it's a war crime according to geneva convention.

Regardless if he was a militant or not. Shooting an injured enemy combatant is a war crime. This video clearly show guy was desperately seeking help.

Geneva convention is for soldiers, not for foreign terrorists.

 

[Genghis khan1]

Geneva convention is for soldiers, not for foreign terrorists.

Meh.., it's for all enemy combatants. Those fighting for their freedom also.

 

[BetterPakistan]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1024021634380547

A ‪‎Kashmiri‬ was stuck and was asking for help from the Indian army. He was in pain. First the soldiers tried to help him but when they saw his "beard" (Assuming he is a Muslim) they killed him. And then the officer ordered other soldiers to try to identify him.

Indian troops could have simply saved his life but instead they killed him. In my view, a professional army wouldn't do that.

You call Indian army professional? Really? they are actually insane

I regret to see such armed forces still exist in the world. This is the discipline which is taught to Indian army? Pathetic

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Technically, it's a war crime according to geneva convention.

Regardless if he was a militant or not. Shooting an injured enemy combatant is a war crime. This video clearly show guy was desperately seeking help.

Technically, the Geneva Convention is not applicable when one of the warring parties have not signed the Geneva Convention.
Shooting an injured combatant is not a war crime anyway, unless he is inside a hospital.
Shooting a prisoner of war of a signee of the Geneva Convention is banned.

 

[Genghis khan1]

Technically, the Geneva Convention is not applicable when one of the warring parties have not signed the Geneva Convention.
Shooting an injured combatant is not a war crime anyway, unless he is inside a hospital.
Shooting a prisoner of war of a signee of the Geneva Convention is banned.

It is a war crime. Shooting a combatant who have given up, or is not fighting is also a war crime. It is applicable for those who have signed it, regardless if the other party's signatory or not.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

It is a war crime. Shooting a combatant who have given up, or is not fighting is also a war crime. It is applicable for those who have signed it, regardless if the other party's signatory or not.

Go and read again.
https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl...t&documentId=BE2D518CF5DE54EAC1257F7D0036B518

COMMENTARY OF 2016
ARTICLE 2 : APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION
Text of the provision*
(1) In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
(2) The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
(3) Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

I am not aware that LET and others has shown any acceptance of the Geneva Convention.

There is a further clause. Muslims, which believe that Martyrdom will be theirs if they die for Islam, are getting extra compensation compared to ordinary soldiers, and thus are defined as
soldiers fighting for their own prosperity.
That means they are classified as mercenaries which has no rights whatsoever according to
the Geneva Conventions, regardless whether their nation has signed the Geneva Conventions or not.

 

[Genghis khan1]

Go and read again.
https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl...t&documentId=BE2D518CF5DE54EAC1257F7D0036B518

COMMENTARY OF 2016
ARTICLE 2 : APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION
Text of the provision*
(1) In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
(2) The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
(3) Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

I am not aware that LET and others has shown any acceptance of the Geneva Convention.

There is a further clause. Muslims, which believe that Martyrdom will be theirs if they die for Islam, are getting extra compensation compared to ordinary soldiers, and thus are defined as
soldiers fighting for their own prosperity.
That means they are classified as mercenaries which has no rights whatsoever according to
the Geneva Conventions, regardless whether their nation has signed the Geneva Conventions or not.

Technically, it's a freedom struggle and in these situations, every time when the dust settles, these incidents are listed as war crimes in international courts. They are locals, not mercenaries or anything.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Technically, it's a freedom struggle and in these situations, every time when the dust settles, these incidents are listed as war crimes in international courts. They are locals, not mercenaries or anything.

Not too many examples where there have been any cases coming up in International Courts.
Name one conviction...
Statements outside the court does not count.

 

[@RV]

Technically, it's a war crime according to geneva convention.

Regardless if he was a militant or not. Shooting an injured enemy combatant is a war crime. This video clearly show guy was desperately seeking help.

Enemy combatant, seriously. What about ISIS then, they are also enemy combatants and must be dealt according to geneva conventions.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Enemy combatant, seriously. What about ISIS then, they are also enemy combatants and must be dealt according to geneva conventions.

Did the ISIS sign the Geneva Convention, think not?
Was the treatment of the Jordanian Pilot POW according to the Geneva Convention?

 

[Genghis khan1]

Enemy combatant, seriously. What about ISIS then, they are also enemy combatants and must be dealt according to geneva conventions.

They are fighting for their own land. There are UN resolutions on it. They don't have global agenda or ideology.

Not too many examples where there have been any cases coming up in International Courts.
Name one conviction...
Statements outside the court does not count.

It would be like, Bosnian war crimes tribunal.

 

[@RV]

Did the ISIS sign the Geneva Convention, think not?
Was the treatment of the Jordanian Pilot POW according to the Geneva Convention?

Replace 'ISIS' with 'Kashmiri Terrorist' and read it for yourself.

They are fighting for their own land. There are UN resolutions on it. They don't have global agenda or ideology.

Same would be applicable for operation Jarb-e-azb and Baluchistan separatist leaders, right.

 

[Genghis khan1]

Replace 'ISIS' with 'Kashmiri Terrorist' and read it for yourself.

Same would be applicable for operation Jarb-e-azb and Baluchistan separatist leaders, right.

Meh..., It's like saying same would be applicable against Golden temple attack and police attacks on muslims in Gujarat and mumbai riots.

 

[@RV]

Meh..., It's like saying same would be applicable against Golden temple attack and police attacks on muslims in Gujarat and mumbai riots.

Police attacked? When did this conspiracy come out?

 

[Indika]

They are fighting for their own land. There are UN resolutions on it. They don't have global agenda or ideology.


It would be like, Bosnian war crimes tribunal.

Yeah then lets starts with genocide of kashmiri pandits.