>
>I've heard different reports. One says Iraqi's are faking
>surrender to kill Americans. The other says Americans are
>being ambushed, surrendering with hands up, and being
>murdered (it's murder because it's a war crime to kill a
>surrendering force.)
>
>But, then again, we ARE invading these people's homeland and
>we are a bigger, wealthier and "better" trained military.
>Tactics like these are what make victors out of underdogs.
>There are no rules when it comes to defending your home. If
>you have to murder, you'll murder, when your brothers and
>sisters, fathers, mothers and babies are being killed in
>order for a invading force to oust your president. It
>reminds me of the movie "Red Dawn". The invading Russians
>getting put in there place by these rogue - guerilla tactic
>weilding high school students called "Wolverines!!!" -
>really, they were defending their homes and families and
>they were using whatever means. (Terrorism)
>
>Please discuss, I would like to hear comments on my
>thoughts.
>
>Thanks in advance.

I understand the underdog analogy, but it is also in violation of the geneva convention which is in place to protect noncombatants and prisoners of war. Once you surrender, you are no longer considered a noncombatant and protected by the geneva convention. Faking surrenders, dressing as noncombatants and firing on soldiers, attacking from hospitals, mosques, etc. are in direct violation and putting other noncombatants in danger. What happens when american soldiers start firing on those targets to protect themselves from those tactics?