Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Crime & Punishment More than 30 Top U.S. Officials Guilty of WarCrime

I am fairly certain, Ezekiel, that your knowledge of the "Law of Armed Conflict"; Geneva Conventions; The Hague Conventions, & etc., is pretty limited, which is why I prefer not to engage in these discussions. Any effort to actually apply the law to the discussion is usually dismissed off hand, because, as I said, it is not applicable - these quickly become a hermetically sealed discussion based upon previously formed opinion and ideological posturing unrelated to actual application to real world circumstances. I appreciate those who are anti-war - am even quite sympathetic - but that does not equate to anyone who engages in warfare being a "war criminal." When we lose the capacity to make distinctions - even fine distinctions - discussion becomes irrelevant. Broad-brush, nonsensical, divorced-from-reality-or-fact assertions such as "the U.S. being a major offender" demonstrate the shallowness of the analysis. I used to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to educate and discuss, but it became too frustrating.

Again, NW, your logic is deeply flawed. To discuss actual facts, as those presented, one does not need to engage in legal posturing. The fact that rape is not a military strategy is pretty well established (if it is please present a document saying so).
The fact that killing unarmed civilians (especially non-military women and children) is not a military strategy is also pretty well established.
My assertion of U.S. being a major offender is substantiated in my post, as opposed to your dismissing it based on - hmmmm - what exactly?
I have had military training and am well aware of the so-called rules that no one follows. I have worked with veterans from Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan. I have heard their testimony. I don't need an armchair view from 30000 feet that indeed has no basis in reality.
Again, you make no case but continue to whine. Not very convincing.

As if one needed more evidence.

"one does not need to engage in legal posturing." I rest my case - no interest in actually applying any legal standard to the actions. Am I saddened and disgusted that civilians die - of course I am. But to discuss war "crimes" without applying the "law" is like running the Romney campaign. "We won't be dictated to by fact-checkers."

Still no argument or facts, heim?
I did say "posturing" - an expression I'm sure someone of your education understands very well.

Taliban take credit for bomb that killed American, Afghans CNN; Taliban massacres outlined for UN Chicago Tribune. October 2001; link; Afghan civilian deaths hit record high in 2011, U.N. report says.

Just a few "facts" that might have been "overlooked."

So say the wise men of Geneva:

If you were truly interested in a discussion, Ezekiel, I'd be happy to engage in one. I have not "postured" at all - I have tried - as you know, on multiple occasions - to bring the actual law into the discussion, but any reference to said law has, as here, been rebuffed as "posturing" or other dismissive terms.

A question fer ya: Is Afghanistan American territory?
Another question fer ya: The fact that someone else commits atrocities justifies you in doing the same?

Please, give me a f**king break!

Not true, NW. The law, as it applies to war, has relevance and I never dismissed it. I said it wasn't being followed.
Not the same thing.
Also, what I contest is the idea that civilian casualties, provoked by ANYONE, are justifiable.
Also, I think it is willing blindness when one refuses to see that their own army has committed the same sins as those of the opposing army and tries to justify it by some convoluted legal technical palaver.
The U.S. is not the only offender, but it is major offender if only by force of the number of wars it has engaged in.