Summations Only

Talk about Godwin's law...- Oni

Well there you go. Couldn't you just have acknowledged that from the beginning rather than jerk us around?A person can be considered a theif without being convicted in a court of law.Likewise, Bush and Reagan can be considered war criminals without a conviction in a court of law.That was my only point.If you want to discuss whether they are actual war criminals we can do that. But I needed to establish that first since it was your first debate point. If that's how you want to see it...- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Yes, and the drone attacks do that BECAUSE they are taking place ina an area and against a people that we are NOT at war with.- Oni

Your last three four replies are moronic.I'll leave you to wallow in your own stupidity.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Aw man, I'm only tryin'. Teach me how to be as smart as you!- Oni

Where am I being dishonest???I have left out the portion that doesn't pertain to drone attacks. That's not dishonest, that's efficient.Explain how I'm misinterpreting it then, pretty please?- Oni

It's the part where you've misrepresented your source. Teaching you the intricacies of the English language is outside of scope.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."No I won't admit that. There is definitely a violation here. I will admit that, with enough lawyers, guns and money, you can do whatever you want to. Couldn't have said it better. It is madness I know and I want to make it clear that I have offered no defence for what others are doing. I am not suggesting that we let acts of terrorism or military aggression go unanswered. I am only suggesting that we treat them the way that we would be treated and not the way that they are treating us.Your friend was killed in Iraq wasn't he? A country that the US had invaded and in so doing had killed 10's of thousands of people. Honestly, if the countries were reversed wouldn't you have fought back? Attacks against an invading army are not terrorism.

Indeed. We start from the absurd position of having the 'rules of war'. So if Canada declared war on Iran do you think then that we could kill Iranians wherever we found them? What did we learn from interning the Japanese during WWII?

And here is the point. We do not forgive 'accidents' that, upon review, should have been avoided.Are you honestly saying that you do not see the difference between a car accident on your way to work and accidentally blowing someone up at a restaurant?

That is almost funny.
Have you ever considered learning to be a comedian?With some work, you could one day be as funny as Andrew Clay.

The word I think that you are looking for is "negligence".There is no significant difference between an accident on your way to work and an accident at work (yes, soldiers are at work).
Both accidents could result in an arrest.Deaths due to negligence are already illegal and people are prosecuted for it.
But negligence does not mean intentional nor targeted.And these "accidental deaths" are a world away from "murder" and "war crimes".Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

That's a noble sentiment coming from a bunch of slaveholders, but those words are not present in a legal document. A violation of what? By what law do you arrest people who aren't subject to your jurisdiction? By what law do you charge them with activities that, under their law, might not even be illegal? I keep asking and you keep not answering. My friend didn't die in "an attack against an invading army." He died in an attack on a medivac convoy, travelling under medical livery and protected in that endeavor by the Geneva Conventions. I'm not saying that we should be terrorists to fight terrorists. I've never believed that. But drone strikes aren't terrorism.

HEY! It's Andrew Dice CLay, The Dice Man or Mr. Clay, to you. Respect.But let's go back to the problem.I said earlier that Bush and Reagan were war criminlas and you asked where they ever convicted, right?As an analogy, I asked if someone could be so good at stealing that they've never been convicted of it, yet they'd still be considered what we would call a "theif". After going in circles, you seem to come to that point too: one can be a theif while never having been caught or tried.As another analogy, I said I witnessed someone get shot in the head. I'll further that by saying (to remove your sneaky ways of slipping and sliding through it) that I walked up to the body, brains everywhere, it was my best friend. He died on the street. I saw the shooter; his face, clear as day. The shooter ran never to be found again. Here again, I don't need a court or a verdict to tell me that my friend was murdered and that the shooter is a murderer.Likewise, the actions of both Bush and Reagan or those of war criminlas. There need be no court or verdict to come to that conclusion. Just like the shooter and the amazing theif, they too got away with it.On the point of Article 8. YOU said it's irrelevant when one is at war. So I'll ask again, as I've asked crash and CS: Who are we at war with? It's certainly not Pakistan where the drones are bombing.So there, these are my points sarcasm-free. If you want to clear up where I'm wrong then do so.- Oni

Please calm down Ringo. Read my entire paragraph. It was a silly joke. I don't really have a drone missile in my pocket.Actually, this is a very depressing subject for me. At work, several years ago, I needed to create a desk aid to help social workers determine child abuse. In it, were actual case photos of dozens of physically abused children. Because the colours of the injuries needed to be exact, I needed to retouch them over several days. I felt sick at the end of each day. I felt similarly when I researched and posted the dead children photos for my previous message. My silly asides are my way to handle the depression of this topic.