[quote]benos4752 wrote:
So, if they are killed while they are attacking our troops, our troops become war criminals for defending themselves…right…that makes sense…why did we ever stop carpet bombing…[/quote]
Never said that.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
Civilians directly participating in hostilities - either individually or as part of a group - become legitimate targets of attack, though only for the duration of their direct participation in hostilities.
That refers to civilians aiding “lawful combatants”(usually the armed forces of a nation state)and it allows the killing of those civilians under international law. Has nothing to do with drone strikes as they don’t target civilians. You were talking about “civilians” who are killed in collateral damage during the targeted killing of terrorists. This is getting beyond ridiculous now.[/quote]
You asked what is a civilian, I gave you an answer. Drone strikes kill civilian, killing civilian is a war crimes, it’s not collateral damage.
[quote]joebassin wrote:
What are you talking about. Civilians can’t take part in hostilities. If they do it, they become unlawful combatant. They will not always be killed in the course of hostilities, they can be captured or they can escape. They cannot be killed, they have to be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state. That’s why the US is not in compliance with international law.
If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered " unlawful " or " unprivileged " combatants or belligerents. They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. [/quote]
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
What are you talking about. Civilians can’t take part in hostilities. If they do it, they become unlawful combatant. They will not always be killed in the course of hostilities, they can be captured or they can escape. They cannot be killed, they have to be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state. That’s why the US is not in compliance with international law.
If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered " unlawful " or " unprivileged " combatants or belligerents. They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. [/quote]
[/quote]
And my post just after this one you quote (which was to clarify it) was:
Civilians directly participating in hostilities - either individually or as part of a group - become legitimate targets of attack, though only for the duration of their direct participation in hostilities.
[quote]joebassin wrote:
You asked what is a civilian, I gave you an answer.
[/quote]
No you didn’t.
Yes…
Depends.
Yes it is.
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
What are you talking about. Civilians can’t take part in hostilities. If they do it, they become unlawful combatant. They will not always be killed in the course of hostilities, they can be captured or they can escape. They cannot be killed, they have to be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state. That’s why the US is not in compliance with international law.
If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered " unlawful " or " unprivileged " combatants or belligerents. They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. [/quote]
[/quote]
And my post just after this one you quote (which was to clarify it) was:
Civilians directly participating in hostilities - either individually or as part of a group - become legitimate targets of attack, though only for the duration of their direct participation in hostilities.
[/quote]
Wow, just wow. You are something…Joe
[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
What are you talking about. Civilians can’t take part in hostilities. If they do it, they become unlawful combatant. They will not always be killed in the course of hostilities, they can be captured or they can escape. They cannot be killed, they have to be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state. That’s why the US is not in compliance with international law.
If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered " unlawful " or " unprivileged " combatants or belligerents. They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. [/quote]
[/quote]
And my post just after this one you quote (which was to clarify it) was:
Civilians directly participating in hostilities - either individually or as part of a group - become legitimate targets of attack, though only for the duration of their direct participation in hostilities.
[/quote]
Wow, just wow. You are something…Joe[/quote]
Thank you buddy.
This family was accepted as refugees by the Australian government before they migrated to Canada.
The patriarch on police wiretap: “Even if they come back to life a hundred times, if I have a cleaver in my hand, I will (them) to pieces. Not once but a hundred times. . .May the devil shit on their graves!”
[quote]NotaQuitta wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NotaQuitta wrote:
As someone who has lived under Islamic-majority rule for nigh on 20 years, I can say that Islam itself is not “evil” but is certainly dangerous. And stupid.
It breeds a culture of close-mindedness and a mindset of unquestioning subservience to the pronouncements of a privileged few “empowered” individuals. It is those individuals that are frequently evil - to a greater or lesser degree.
And yes, even in the supposedly “progressive” Muslim nations.[/quote]
Can you give any insight into any cultural/tribal aspects to honour killings and other violence in parts of the Muslim world?[/quote]
Yes.
Not going to bore you with a dissertation, but Islam fosters a:
a) Closed mindset (our way/culture/religion is the best, all others are rubbish) and intolerance.
b) Unquestioning subservience to religion (religious fatwas/decrees/The Koran/The Hadith are not to be questioned). If a kaffir questions it, he/she is “disrespectful” and threatened. If a fellow Muslim questions it (incredibly rare as the majority have been brainwashed) then he/she is branded “munafiqe” (a hypocrite/traitor) which results in social osctracization.
c) Hostility against non-Muslims. Not ALWAYS necessarily violent, however, all kaffir are seen as “the Other” and to be opposed in word or deed while Muslims will receive preferential treatment/consideration.
It really is one of the worst religions/cults on the face of the planet at this present moment.[/quote]
Didnt need to read much more of this thread. This says it all here. A very CONTROLLING religion.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
More Muslim fun.
Shamima was bundled into a car by sisters Nadiya, 25, Nazira, 29, and brother Kayum Mohammed-Abdul, 24, outside a Basingstoke restaurant when they saw her kissing work colleague Gary Pain on April 1 last year.
The jury heard how an “extremely aggressive and threatening” Mohammed-Abdul grabbed Mr Pain by the neck as Miss Akhtar was “firmly escorted” to the car and thrown in.
The car was driven back to the family home in Basingstoke, Hants, where it’s alleged she was dragged onto the sofa, called a whore and a prostitute and then had her waist-length hair cut to her neck by her two older sisters.
The jury heard how Shamima was punched by her sister Nadiya and overheard her brother on the phone, saying “Get the gun, I need the boys tonight.”
He is then alleged to have presented his sister with two knives and a hammer and asked her to “pick one to be used” on her and “one to be used on her lover boy”, Winchester Crown Court heard.
[/quote]
BUT RELIGION OF PEACE WAAARGGGGLBLGH