Summations Only

Ok, what do YOU think they mean?I'll gladly explain mine interpretation. But if you already think I'm wrong, let's just cut to they chase and hear the right interpretation.Don't just tell me it doesn't violate it, explain why it doesn't. I'm under the impression that it does. I guess I'm dumb, so please, splain it for me.- Oni

But later realise that you were in the wrong flat. No theft had occurred!
(True story: I popped outside to talk to a friend and ran back indoors, only to find that someone had changed all of my furniture. I then promptly apologised to the home-owner and left. All the flats look the same from outside. I was actually in the wrong block of flats.) Answer: "Thief"
But what is the name of that thief? Who is that thief?
You've conveniently skipped the part where you identify a person as a thief.Oni: "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?"
Correct.
We know thieves exist.
We don't know that a particular person is a thief until they have been convicted. And it turns out that he fired blanks (as a joke) and it was a different gunman (grassy knoll?) that shot him.
Sure, you can physically call someone a thief - but don't expect me to think you are correct.
There is a reason why vigilante's are not encouraged... And are therefore war criminals as well.
Yes. I understand your logic.
I also find it flawed.

I'll add brackets - maybe that will help...

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;

---

{abe}
It could be expanded to 3 sentences:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause damage to civilian objects which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause 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; Sure - go ahead.Edited by Panda, : colours!Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

If the drone attacks are not clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage of them, then they don't violate it.

Look, you know you're being dishonest. Adding the "etc" that isn't actually in the material you're quoting is the proof. Why not just stop?

Or maybe he's stoned out of his gourd...

There seems to be some sick but needed reason in many (most?) individuals to disassociate all the actions that precipitated 9/11 .Crash, Panda, CS: It was america's continued criminal actions that caused THIS blowback: I would have thought that the lesson learned would have been clear: "Stop doing harm in the world or else it is revisited to oneself." Yet, today, america continues its criminal actions via drones setting up yet another violent act of blowback.Look at the following photos. It's impossible for me to imagine drone use and ALL its subsequent violence as somehow the "lesser of evils." Yet, when you defend the use of drone missiles, as you are in this thread, . . . you do.

quote:

---

Syed Wali Shah Age7 Killed In CIA Pakistan Drone Attack
The CIA’s drone campaign targeting suspected militants in Pakistan has killed dozens of civilians who had gone to rescue victims or were attending funerals.

---

Murdering bastards kill with drone robots!! – The FreeFrom other drone attacks: Edited by dronester, : clarity

You remind me of the line from Dr. Strangelove, "You can't fight here. This is the War Room."I think your idea of fencing off the battlefields and plastering everywhere else with "No Fighting" signs is at least as silly as disbanding armies.

But surely you don't also believe international laws, signed treaties, and the Geneva conventions silly?

No it wasn't.
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."And I think they should add 9/11 to Godwin's Law.Anyway, you have automatically lost this debate.
/golfclap{abe}
And FFS - learn the [thumb] BBCode.
Then you might look less like a Dennis Markuze clone.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I just can't take you seriously, Drone.And for real, one picture of a dead baby would have made your point. That you felt the need to post 10 pictures of dead babies says more about you than it does any point you were trying to make. Evil things happen in warfare. We all know this.But even more evil things would've happened from a infantry invasion. Ergo, a drone attack equals less evil. This isn't a difficult concept. Nor does it imply that drone attacks would equal no evil.So surely you must be joking.

Sorry, I missed this little corker... But that accident is reasonably preventable. And car crashes are a predictable result of driving.
But to you, they are unnatural accidents which are not accidents at all! Yes it does. It is the very definition of accident. But that was an accident because he didn't mean to kill someone.
It was also vehicular manslaughter (NB: not vehicular murder).But due to the lack of intent, it is definitely an accident. And you want to arrest and prosecute soldiers who accidentally kill civilians - so, yes. It equates to disbanding our armies.
No soldier will fight in a war if accidental deaths would get them imprisoned for life.
No soldiers = no army.
.You have spent ~200 words desperately trying to define accidents as intentional acts.
Perhaps you should just use the definition already used by everyone else.Do you have any argument that doesn't involve you inverting the meaning of words?

Do any of them require playing only on designated battlefields?

I have no idea what your referring to. Bush Jr. and Tony Blair said 9/11 happened because "the terrorists hate our freedoms". Is that what you believe? if not, then what? Oh, okay. If you say so, I'll just stop then.

Oh c'mon now. You know you secretly love me and my fancy $50 haircuts. Au contraire. I wish I could post EVERY photo of EVERY child that american drones have killed. So far hundreds. A pity I don't even have their names. But the US military doesn't keep tabs on those 'worthless details.' America just can't be bothered.The Vietnam war came to a quicker conclusion because americans tired of seeing the carnage from their actions on the television (see napalm victim below). Since today's conflicts are "invisible," americans don't even consider the american atrocities: False dichotomy. You are using Rhavin's sad and erroneous argument for pro-atom bomb use in WWII. That argument was quickly dispensed by Mod, Caffeine and I. Before even considering many other options, how about legitimizing the reason for the violent conflict to begin with? You still do not want to acknowledge that blowbacks are a consequence of doing criminal/immoral actions. The following picture shows one such blowback. To continue the drones will inevitably cause another severe blowback and greatly put the world at risk for more 'terrorist' attacks. We KNOW this. It HAS happened (review the picture below). That IS the cost of drone use. You are apparently considering that the following consequence is still the lesser evil conclusions of drone use. It is not acceptable to me. It apparently IS acceptable to Crash, Panda, and you: