Was this a war crime?

[araine901]

Here is the definition. Without the context it is impossible to make a determination. But it is fun to ask inflamitory questions without logic or context.

war crime
n.
Any of various crimes, such as genocide or the mistreatment of prisoners of war, committed during a war and considered in violation of the conventions of warfare.

WWW.dictionary.com

[dd74]

War crime? Fine line according to the video. If a firefight is going on two blocks away as one poster stated, well, heck, if I walked out in the middle of the street just then, I could also expect some shelling in my direction.

Mulholland: I never had a problem with the guy. Who knows why? No, correction: I do know why: I never had a problem with him because I understand the difference between talking "with" someone and talking "at" or "down" to someone. Only once did I talk (or write) "down" to him, and I regretted it, because as his posts continued, I figured Mull probably had some sort of emotional problems; he could definitely sound pissed at the drop of a hat.

Oh well, he's gone now, but that's okay: there's still enough meglomaniac head cases still posting on this board.

[john70t]

"considered in violation of the conventions of warfare"

-I thought war was what happened when diplomacy failed?
For the most part, there seems to have been a universal understanding of cultural dignity/respect throughout history during the times inbetween battles........but I thought there were few instances where battles were conducted on a purely symbolic basis.
The British line-up-in-red-and-get-shot routine is one, both sides of the US civil war was another. Can't think of any others at the time.

[araine901]

I just wonder why people were only running out of one building? Why did they think the building was going to be a target of the circling aricraft? Anyone in any of the other buildings in the area did not seem to feel that they were a "target"

[fintstone]

Mul backed up his posts ...certainly as well as the liberals who argued with him. he is a very smart guy. He only verbally retaliated in proportion to the amount he was attacked. ...which was often as he was a prolific, well-informed poster.

[hoff944]

Whew!!!!!!! I'm finally back after being abducted by a Bush administration conspiracy I cannot release the details on for fear of being hunted down by Bushy rogue Texas rangers and killed. I'm even in the process of going to the airside with a 911. Anyways, watch out because Red is right, so put on your aluminum foil hats. It is bad enough Bush was behind Sept 11th, but he was also behind the Columbia space shuttle disaster as well. I got the info during my abduction. Bush had it blown up for fear of the crew leaking out information that the mission was REALLY to launch a Bush/Cheney sattelite that is collecting data from people brains. Rumor has it that it is going to be updated for mind control if Bush is elected again in 04'. Well I must go. My phone is ringing. It's probably Michael Moore returning my phone call in reference to doing a Moore/Hoff joint documentary about all of this.

[red ufo]

Hate to be a Debbie Downer but the military just blew another wedding.

http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6447643

I guess anytime the military screws up they just same males aged 16=35 of 'military age' to fight or 'Zarqawi' was in a 'safe house', but we goofed because we got info from the CIA!

Jews, Jews are cool, thought of becoming one myself, never met one I didn't like.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

He likes me, he really likes me!

[island911]

Originally posted by red ufo
Hate to be a Debbie Downer but the military just blew another wedding.

. ..

OH NO! . .. not in a war zone.
another wedding blown!? ..say it aint so . .. was the brides hair badly mussed up?

[red ufo]

Originally posted by island911
OH NO! . .. not in a war zone.
another wedding blown!? ..say it aint so . .. was the brides hair badly mussed up?

I don't know but how much you wanna bet, the

result = 'more blackwater employees, ending up on rotten.com and Bagdads BlockbusterVideo "head choppin' of the month' guaranteed to be in stock section'"

[island911]

So your saying that more violence will follow?

Wow, what a reach, on that one.
.. . And I think that, since a doctor said it was "a wedding party". . that the sun will rise again tomorow.

(read: WTF. . .of course more violence will follow. Thats why they are terrorists. . . they will kill US civilian because there is too much porn on the internet, for example. They have nothing much to live for, so they need little (or no) provication to go on killing sprees.

[Superman]

Yeah, right. We kill an entire wedding party and our response is (always sarcastically, never straightforward): Say it ain't so...messed up the bride's hair

If this were a straightforward post, how would it read? Perhaps: "No big deal. Some dead Iraqi citizens. BFD. Not something to fret over."

?

[island911]

I didn't say "messed up" . . I said mussed up" as to reference tabs wise words of yesterday.

So how 'bout you supe? If yours were a straightforward post, it would be;
"Weddings are sacred. a wedding should never be disrupted, even if head-chopping murderers are getting married. . . .the US military, should wait, planes should circle in a holding pattern, until AFTER the ceremony . . .before they insinerate the palce.

Hey, Martha Stewart may be in jail, but we still need our manners"

[Superman]

Oh, that's right. I almost forgot. KILL THEM ALL. All those Iraq/terrorist/BinLaden/Alqueda/Saddam/terrorist/Iraq people. I've got a suggestion. Since we're not distinguishing between any of various groups of Middle Eastern people, and since killing them is just the goal, pure and simple, how 'bout you neocons just calling them "Towel-heads." That way, we libs will stop being confused into assuming that you agree there might be innocent people over there, just trying their best to have a life.

[island911]

Originally posted by Superman
Oh, that's right. I almost forgot. KILL THEM ALL. .. ..

Hey, I know that lib's, like you think that the world is over populated, but c'mon . .. let's not get extreme.

Did you read the article?

IT SAYS: "The U.S. military said the "precision strike" had hit a safe-house being used by the network of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi at 1:15 a.m. Friday.

"Credible intelligence sources confirmed Zarqawi leaders were meeting at the safe-house at the time of the strike," a statement said. "

AND YET YOU FOCUS ON: a hospital doctor said Friday - killed 11 people and wounded 17 at a wedding party.

DID YOU NOT SEE:"The U.S. military said the "precision strike" had hit a safe-house being used by the network of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi at 1:15 a.m. Friday.

"Credible intelligence sources confirmed Zarqawi leaders were meeting at the safe-house at the time of the strike," a statement said. "
(?)

The crux of your argument is that it's not a target if there "might be innocent people over there, just trying their best to have a life."

AND, if ANY "innocent people" get killed, then we have engaged in a "KILL THEM ALL" stratagy. (yeah, perfect logic)

Geez this is getting old, dealing with your extreme swings and spins.

[dd74]

Weren't we all raised, to an extent, to believe that if we're in the wrong place at the wrong time (even if it is "the wrong war at the wrong time"), that we can expect unfavorable circumstances?

If I saw Abu Musab al-Zarqawi attending a wedding I also was attending, I'd take one last gulp of champagne, find my coat, and slip out the back. Of course after I plant a wet one on the bride.

What we truly have to wonder, though, is if there was a bride at this wedding.

[CarreraS2]

Note to self: Have fiancee take al-Zarqawi off guest list.

Small weddings are better anyways, and he's just showing up for the free booze.

[tabs]

Originally posted by dd74


Oh well, he's gone now, but that's okay: there's still enough meglomaniacial head cases still posting on this board.

Why Thank You DD for recognizing that I am still here.....

[Icemaster]

Originally posted by Superman
Oh, that's right. I almost forgot. KILL THEM ALL. All those Iraq/terrorist/BinLaden/Alqueda/Saddam/terrorist/Iraq people.

NOW you're starting to make sense.

JK.

Think about this: When the insurgents/terrorists are wearing civilian clothes and blending into the background after they lauch an RPG at a Bradley or a group of aid workers, what rules of engagement is one to follow? Certainly looking for the guys in the enemies uniform isn't gonna work.

I'm perfectly OK with shoot first, ask questions later.

[kach22i]

A good place to post this, okay it's cut and paste but it's a good read too.

http://morans.blogspot.com/2003_10_01_morans_archive.html
Letter I wish I wrote

This appeared yesterday in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Breaking the law

Re: "The 'imminence' spin," Commentary Page, Oct. 19:

It might be true, as Jonah Goldberg claims, that George W. Bush "never said that the threat from Iraq was 'imminent.' " But to anyone familiar with international law, such a claim only further condemns the Bush administration.

According to international law, a country may defend itself when attacked, or launch a preemptive strike if it believes an attack to be imminent.

However, it's illegal to launch a "preventive" war, to strike a country simply because it might, someday, become an imminent threat.

Yet the U.S. struck Iraq without any hard evidence of such operational deployments. No operational weapons of mass destruction were used or found during (or immediately after) the invasion.

Not only is the burden of proof on the attacker, but attempts to substitute evidence of Iraq's weapons "programs," "plans" or "desires" will not suffice.

Walter C. Uhler

Philadelphia