myata

Why don't you read up (on political geography) and come back with more insightful comments?

And how do we know that your mind is a well of complexity? Anyways, not an argument so does not deserve answer. I agree. As long as any hit on a civilian target is classified as an intentional attack. Really. If dropping a bomb into a house is not an "intentional" killing, the same can be said about flying a plane into it. BTW, in that episode, "military targets" (Israeli) were not "hiding" on the bus. They were simply taking it to the place of their posting. Does it still make it (the bus) a legitimate target? First, Geneva convention is not a universal revelation from the God. If one goes to war, unasked for, somewhere far far away, there's no guarantee it's the old good Geneva convention they'll find there. Secondly, what is "practical"? It's not practical for those who resist an occupation by hugely superior military force to come out in a field and die. Does it mean that their allotment of "practical" casualties can be different from their opposition? Then, another point altogether is the creative interpretation of Geneva Convention in the way that would ask for maximum protection for your troops (which on occasion happen to be invading other countries) while giving little or none to those who resist.

Well times and places are different, but the policies are the same: US supports Ethiopean invasion in Somalia. And Ethiopian is known to be a suppressive undemocratic regime. Accused of torturing prisoners. And running secret prisons for the US war on terror. When and how is it going to blow back? Canada should officially state that it has nothing to do with this business (ie. the whole business of the "war on terror"). It's going to bring us trouble if we stick with it, even on a verbal level.

I agree. But let's be consistent then: if a bomb is dropped into a house full of people, and a bus taking military personnel to their station is blown up with some civilians on board, and a settler on an occupied land who carries a gun is shot at, they must be all either acts of terrorism, or legitimate warfare / insurgency. I don't really care much which one (all are bad in my view) but the standard must be the same.

Not quite following... If french did it during their revolutionary war x hundred years ago, how does it give it any legitimacy now?

You mean, sponsoring insurgency in another country is better than (i.e., morally superior to) terrorism?

Yes, unlike other, more fortunate parts of the world (like Central and South America, South East Asia, Middle East), Africa has yet to experience full force of benevolent influence from this worlds' greatest champion of democracy. I'll leave it up to its people to decide whether it's something to celebrate, or be concerned about.

To that I subscribe completely. People themselves should make this choices and work to make it happen. To think that it can somehow be "given" or imposed from outside, is the same kind of lunacy as the communism itself.

No we should not "stimulate" regime change anywhere most of all because we have no way of knowing that it won't turn worse than it was (i.e. e.g in an all out war, dictatorial marionette regime a la Shah or like), but also maybe because we've spent so much time perching in a high place and beating our chests as chief champions of peace and moral justice. And if we do "stimulate" such changes we should be honest and prepared to take responsibility for the consequences of our actions.

Every time, it's the same old adage again: "quod licet Jovi non licet bovi". We're liberators when we come for you, but you're a terrorist when you attack us (or resist us, even in your own land).

Welcome back. Will you do the same with the guts of a Palestinian child killed by Israeli bomb? Or Iraqi child killed by US shell? Or Vietnamese child burned by napalm? You're welcome, Rue. I'm sure you won't need help with finding the addresses.

I know I'm late in this discussion - and only wanted to add a brief comment after seeing another video of captured sailors. Of course this parading of helpless people with overpowering force is appalling - and achieves nothing at all. But let's remember what's started the whole thing. Why they were there. It's bizzare and chilling to see the circle of death taking hold. As if some bug of maddness and violence spreading over and catching more and more victims - until it's allowed to run it's course with unknown count of life loss. We've seen it so many times, yet it never fails to repeat itself.

"And it would seem like wisdom but for the warning of my heart." J R R Tolkien "The Fellowship of the Ring"

Maybe and maybe not. Not so long ago, there hadn't been any problem with Islam. Ever wondered, what has changed since? Well, if someone decides to go and subdue other people to his will, should he expect that the fight will be (or should be) according to his rules? Wrong assumption, again. You go in, you may find something new - and there's no guarantee that it'll be a Geneva convention. So, if you had a choice to not go, and did it anyway, isn't it like you brought it upon yourself (and, btw the innocent bystanders who you never asked whether they wanted it)? And what's the point of whining about oppositions methods, now? They can be barbarians, and so on, but you still had that choice, to not go. Nothing can change that.

Obviously, there're people who will justify any of their acts as by definition moral and legal, while those of the opposition that would resist them as immoral and reprehensible. There's nothing new in this practice (in fact it goes all the way back to primordial tribalism) and no reasonable conclusion to any problme can result from it.

Yeah, right. Why and how did you barge into a country thousands miles away, without any clue about what's going on, or any valid reasons to start a war. Killing thousands of innocents, destroying power structure that all but unleashed a full blown civil war with thousands more casualties. Is that what you meant? and so on .... I gather this is the best alternative to a meaningful argument you can come up with.

You see, it can't be judged out of context, because they are all different moral situations. Rocket launcher where? Why is it where it is? Did it really have to be destroyed at the expense of almost certain loss of innocent life? Crowded market where? Why are there people ready to blow themselves to pieces (along with dozens of others)? Did something happen to drive them into that condition? Generally, a life lost is a life lost. The best one can do is to prevent it from happening, to the extent of possible. If it was possible to avoid casualties, and it didn't happen, I don't see much (i.e. any) value in professing on moral virtues from a pile of dead bodies.

Wow, another gem of invincible logic here. Are you striving to surpass Rue? It's gonna be tough, but keep trying.

Ah, what an excellent example of ... trying to find a gentlier, milder equivalent to s-word... whatever. I gather, you aren't expecting a response to that?

UN has many faces. The "functional" bodies like WHO operate successfully and I don't see why it shouldn't continue. I also see the benefit of the General Assembly as the world forum where the issues can at least be brought in and discussed. More controversial (and less valuable) are the parts which try to impose certain ideologies or concepts such as Human Rights Commission. No matter lofty documents like Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there does not seem to be a universal agreement in the matter at this point, so the activities of such bodies are bound to be affected by ideologies and politics. Then there's the matter of world policing. In general, successful functioning of police (as keeper of peace and order) is based on two principles: universal acceptance of the rule of law by subjects; and, impartiality and lawful operation of police. Wherever and whenever at least on of these is compromised, police cannot and won't function successfully. The reality of the world at this time is that neither of the above holds true. There're states that believe that they have privileges to be not bound by the law, and should have greater than others control of the world police. In this reality, effective policing cannot be achieved. Because of that, I think that the existing security infrastructure of the UN (UNSC) only creates an illusion of justice and cannot be efficient or legitimate, and therefore should be disbanded. International security or policing operations can be created ad hoc through GA structure by consenus of members.

Thanks for admitting that one way of killing people is no better than another. Now it's just a matter of terminology. Like calling dropping a bomb into a populated city "accidental killing".

It won't be necessary as in all likelihood you may have trouble reading the posts, however you're free to prove the legality and absolute necessity of the war to yourself.

Well, we've been through this discussion before (with different players), the legality or otherwise of Iraq invaision could not be proven formally, however with the facts like: 1) the majority of the security council did not approve direct "war" resolution; 2) such resolution was considered a condition of participation by many countries including this; 3) UN General Secretary is on record stating that war was illegal; 4) chief of the inspection team on record stating the need for continuation of inspections as opposed to military solution of finding - and so on, one would be fully justified to consider the Iraq action as unnecessary, whatever hired lawyers may be able to suck out of their thumbs on the matter of its formal legality. Starting an unnecessary war leading to hundred(s) of thousands of casualties must be a crime, from any moral point of view. And if one does not treat it as such, I don't see how one could credibly complain or condemn other crimes, on much smaller scale.

Try to understand that there's none. Or, if there was real serious intent to not have them killed, there wouldn't be so many killed already - as direct result of their actions.

Just in case it hasn't been made clear enough: I do not support people who blow up cars in crowded markets. In my view it's a crime. However, it is also a crime to start a war, on a flimsiest pretext, that kills hundred (possibly hundreds) of thousand people, thousands of them children, thousands miles away. If you want to talk about justice, show me how it's done to those who started the bloody business (one won't have to look far for them), and I'll support you against those who took it to the new bloody horisons. Before then, this rightful anger doesn't worth much to me - other than, of course, a propaganda tool in a war where everything goes.