Summations Only

No, because it was a zone where a small tactical army of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were combating the US to weaken our nation. Same as what we do when we drop missles from drones. They don't have the taxes to fund a 98 billion dollar defense budget so, they had to get creative with their weaponry. It clearly does, you just failed to read it or didn't care to concede that it does. As usual.

quote:

---

(iv) 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

---

- Oni

Plenty of people here voted for and still support the decisions of the Bush administration. So yeah, many here do support a war criminal.I'd also wager many here supported Reagan, who supported the Contras, who were war criminals themselves, and by proxy so was Reagan. So there are plenty of war criminal supporters here.- Oni

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

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

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

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

Thanks CS, for just explaining it clearly. Panda and crashfrog...I don't know what they're doing actually. Breaking it down into brackets? WTF Anyway... I already asked Panda, but he's just jerking around. What anticipated military advantage is the US looking at in relation to Pakistan where the drones on bombing and where the civilians are dying?We are not, as far as I know, at war with Pakistan. Who are we even at war with?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

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

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

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