Summations Only

Bush was convicted of war crimes?!?
Wow - I somehow missed that news story.Can you provide some links - it would be interesting to read... And by that logic, anyone that voted Republican in the 80's is a war criminal.
And since the UK supported Reagan: anyone that voted Conservative in the 80's is a war criminal.Guilt by association will find us all guilty eventually.
J'accuse!

Quote-mining?
Really??

So then, you admit that there's no "due process" violation here, since the people being targeted by air strikes aren't due any process in American courts. What do you think militaries do, deliver flowers? If it's an accident, how could you ever be guilty of it? If you act with reckless indifference and thereby cause an accident, it's no accident at all. About six a month, in fact. My best friend growing up died in one. He was an infantry paramedic trying to evacuate wounded soldiers when his medivac team came under rocket attack from Al Qaeda.

How are they "like criminals" if what they're doing isn't against their laws?

So I thought to myself "you know, I bet Oni has, per usual, used selective quoting to misrepresent his sources", and what a surprise, I was right!

quote:

---

Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

---

Drone strikes don't violate Article 8, but you've violated the forum guidelines.

A natural accident is not reasonably preventable. Like when a moose runs out on the highway and tries to mate with your Toyota. An unnatural accident isn't really an accident at all but rather a predictable result of behaviour. Like when you 'accidentally' blow up someone at a restaurant with your missile. Saying that you didn't really mean to kill that guy does not make it an accident. The same way that when a drunk kills someone with his car we don't say 'Oh that was an accident because he didn't mean to kill someone.' We say 'you should have known better' and therefore it is not an accident but rather negligence or even homicide. I believe that this is called a straw man argument. I have said repeatedly that I think we should stop allowing our armies to 'accidentally' kill people outside of any recognizable battlefield. Does this equate with disbanding our armies? Having said that, yeah, I think that eventually disbanding the armies would be a great thing. Don't you?You don't get to be civilized by changing the meaning of the word to include your behaviour. You get to be civilized by changing your behaviour to match the meaning of the word. I don't think that we should be able to absolve ourselves of guilt by claiming the deaths accidental. I am astounded by that description.

Are theives only people who have been formally convicted of theft?Or, in your opinion, can someone be so good of a theif that they've never been convicted? Supported a war criminal. I'll grant you though, perhaps not knowingly. But that was then. Anyone showing support now for Reagan, post Iran/Contra, is knowingly supporting a war criminal.Are you saying that aiding the Contras should not be considered a war crime?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

That's what I quoted, what the fuck are you silly gooses going on about quote mining?The particulars about the drone attacks is covered here: "Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians"It continues with "...or civilian objects or widespread, long term damage, etc."But the part that covers drone attacks is what I quoted. Drone attacks violate Article 8.- Oni

Yes.
Do you not agree with 'innocent until proven guilty'? Good to know there is a statute of limitation on war crimes. But that was then.

Seriously?
Ok.All wars violate the provisions of Article 8.The particulars about war is covered here: "Intentionally launching an attack"It continues with "...in the knowledge that such attack, etc."But the part that covers war is what I quoted. Wars violate Article 8.

So in your opinion, unless someone is caught and processed in a court of law, they might be stealing from people's home but they are not considered theives? That's only once someone has been caught and processed. Some people have such connection that it allows them to be above the law in some cases and therefore doesn't get them their day in court. But their actions speak for themselves, and they can surely commit the crime without seeing the inside of a courtroom. I'll ask it more direct then. Should the actions of Reagan during the Iran/Contra be considered a war crime?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Since when are we at war with Pakistan?Who are we at war with exactly?All drones sent to bomb areas in Pakistan by US is the US "intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attacks will cause incidental loss of life to civilians" in a country that we are not at war with.- Oni

Might be stealing from people's home?
If we are not certain then they should not be called thieves. So, until they are caught and processed, you would presume them guilty? Yeah, Oni! Stick it to the man! And I'll address the point you were making and that I was criticising:
Oni: "I'd also wager many here supported Reagan, who supported the Contras, who were war criminals themselves, and by proxy so was Reagan."
And, by proxy, so were Reagan's supporters - according to your flawed logic.

Seriously?
Do I really have to explain that removing 60% of the words from a sentence will change its meaning?The full sentence is: "Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;"The 30 words you conveniently omitted are not there simply as decoration.
They convey meaning - well, maybe not to you.
But they definitely contain meaning: they explain why drone attacks do not violate Article 8.

Ok....You walk into your home and everything has been taken. Many in your neighborhood have experienced the same things. Let's pretend we're writing a screen play.

quote:

---

Panda is bothered by the sight of his apartment. He moved to the nieghborhood because the realtor said it was a safe area.

​

The cop approached Panda.

​

Cop: Sorry Panda (the Officer thinks "What an odd name?") we'll try our best to catch the (blank) but we haven't been very successful so far.

​

Panda: Don't worry, I know you'll do your best to catch the (blank), and I'll do my best to start over I guess.

​

Cop: Hey, look on the bright side...

​

The cop opens the fridge.

​

Cop: ...the (blank) left you a Hot Pocket.

​

They both laugh.

---

Now... What word do we place in the "blank"? If I saw someone shoot another guy in front of me, I don't need a court to tell me he's guilty. There are cases where it is evident that the person is guilty. Reagan funded rebel Contras using money from weapons sold to Iran.Anyone supporting him is supporting a war criminal.- Oni