I agree, Bossel, that the first Geneva conventions (concerning sick and wounded prisoners of war - i.e. sick and wounded combatants), orginates much earlier as you noted.

When referring to the Geneva Conventions in general rather than specific (first, second, third, fourth), I am used to most people referring to the third and fourth conventions adopted in 1949, and specifically the fourth convention which covers the protection of civilians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions



All that to say, I reiterate that such misunderstandings and selective reference to history and its events are often universal pitfalls for all sides of disputes. That being the case, caution, reason, discussion, and such mores should be the guidelines for resolving such disputes, not rash judgementalism and atogonism . . . which of course you recognize, I believe, according to your second statement. To that I am humbly grateful!



I am sorry, everyone. I perhaps dwelled on the Geneva Convention point too much in my desire to respond. Next time I post I promise to move on to other salient points of this thread . . .