Let's take a hypothetical.
Let's not. Could you explain what you meant there?
One of our soldiers fires at someone who doesn't even appear to be armed in Iraq. The Iraqi then pulls out a gun, shoots and kills the soldier. Other soldiers immediately apprehend the Iraqi.
What happens? Do they just say "well our guy fired first, so that's OK, you are free to go on your way?"
I would assume there would be a trial, at the result of which the Iraqi in question would either be acquitted for "self defense" or his sentence would be seriously reduced because he had to defend himself and your soldier flat out shot at him rather than trying to talk to him first.
This "hypothetical" has little to do with what we were discussing, which, to refresh your memory, was:
(1) It is not OK to target and mass murder civilians, even in wartime (see definition of "Crimes against humanity")
(2) Christopher suggested it was OK, because Japanese attacked US first.
(3) That is when I offered the example of whether or not it would be OK for Iraqis to nuke a US civilian city, because US had attacked them out of the blue.
(4) Then you came and said it is not OK for Iraqis to kill any Americans, soldiers currently occupying their country included.
Now I would like to ask what you mean here, because, frankly, I am wondering how you are going to justify your assertion that apparently it is OK for US soldiers to invade their country, kill their armed men AND thousands of civilians, BUT it is not OK for them to fire a single shot back... |
