ARTICLE 3 [ Link ]

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

Rule 113. Treatment of the Dead

Rule 113. Each party to the conflict must take all possible measures to prevent the dead from being despoiled. Mutilation of dead bodies is prohibited.

Summary

State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
International armed conflicts
The obligation to take all possible measures to prevent the dead from being despoiled (or pillaged) was first codified in the 1907 Hague Convention (X).[1]  It is now also codified in the Geneva Conventions.[2]  It is also contained in Additional Protocol I,[3]  albeit in more general terms of “respecting” the dead, which includes the notion of preventing the remains from being despoiled.[4]

The obligation to take all possible measures to prevent the dead from being despoiled or the prohibition of the despoliation of the dead is set forth in numerous military manuals.[5]  The despoliation of dead bodies is an offence under the legislation of many States.[6]  In the Pohl case in 1947, the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg stated that robbing the dead “is and always has been a crime”.[7]  In addition, the prohibition of despoliation of dead bodies is an application of the general prohibition of pillage (see Rule 52).

The prohibition of mutilating dead bodies in international armed conflicts is covered by the war crime of “committing outrages upon personal dignity” under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, which according to the Elements of Crimes also applies to dead persons (see commentary to Rule 90).[8]

Many military manuals prohibit the mutilation or other maltreatment of the dead.[9]  Mutilation of the dead is an offence under the legislation of many States.[10]  In several trials after the Second World War, the accused were convicted on charges of mutilation of dead bodies and cannibalism.[11]  The prohibition on mutilating the dead is further supported by official statements and other practice.[12]

This has many parallels with Brian's previous efforts at spineless apologetics. Gandalf hasn't even answered the question yet and already Brian is trying to divert our eyes from the answer.

You discuss just about everything but my views on Islam.

As I alluded to before, the mutilating effects of suicide bombings should be pretty obvious.

I do not know whether this author takes his argument to the logical conclusion and advocates against (for example) firing a volley of artillery into a concentration of enemy infantry. Or whether he thinks this islamic law only applies to mutilating civilians (which is what he is talking about). He doesn't make this clear.

But of course with all these sorts of matters that FD brings up, its never a simple case of finding a debating point that can be discussed rationally and in a civilized manner. It straight away has to be about some dishonest muslim, plotting some conspiracy to pull the wool over unsuspecting non-muslims eyes. Note how this particular exchange started by FD asking if the author was muslim - a relevant question, he exlplained, because it " triggers my bullshit detector". Nothing at all about the actual article in question - and in fact he started his attack on the article by labelling it as pro suicide bombing.

 

I haven't seen all of it.
It is horrific.