International law. That the state launching the war declares it first is just one of the requirements for it to be within law.
“Conflict” is not a legal term. Specify what sort of conflict.
Exploding bombs on people is generally considered illegal, I don’t think this requires special proof. Either explain why it is not illegal in this case, or retract your statement.
Nato is involved in a conflict and dropping bombs on Military leaders in a war is not illegal.
Yadda, yadda, yadda. Mean what you say or shut up.
I don’t discuss like socialists. I also don’t take orders.
I’m also not a ‘left libertarian’ so I don’t take left libertarian defintions of what is or is not a libertarian.
Abysmal legalese. NATO attack on Libya is a war only colloquially. It is not a war in legal terms, not according to NATO.
Stick to the topic. I don’t give a rat’s arse who you are.
If I need this sort of nonsense I can go to left libertarian forum and meet some of you there where you can all talk about white privelage and rent strikes.
Run away!!
Whatever your views on the intervention, I think it’s hard to spin this as “murder”. Imagine shooting someone who has tried to mug you, only to find out that they were carrying a baby in their jacket which you shot. Are you a murderer, or is the blame on the person who initiated violence and then put an infant in danger whilst doing so (and before someone goes off on a rant about how this is different, you can argue that the funding of the state is illegitimate, but as far as I’m concerned attacking Gadaffi’s forces would be morally justified in and of themselves, and the funding is in this case a seperate matter)? Same for someone who murders protestors and then hangs around their family and grandchildren.
I can imagine that, but they do not look to be equivalent situations.
#1 Bombs were dropped on the residence of Gaddafi’s son, which is also the home of his grandchildren. It was entirely foreseeable that his grandchildren would be in their home.
#2 Gaddafi is a legitimate target, but he was not a present danger. He was not hacking away at somebody, he was visiting with his family.
I think a more appropriate analogy would be: A man pulls a gun on you in an alley, and he happens to have his son with him. You shoot him with a bazooka. The kid happens to die too, but of course, it couldn’t be murder because you only really wanted to kill the mugger. The kid was just collateral damage, so it’s the muggers fault the kid died, not yours.
How is Gaddafi pulling the gun on NATO?
In your scenario unless I shoot my bazooka, or if I miss I am dead, or made victim in some other way.
In our case NATO missed, jet nothing happened to it. It was without consequence.
Also actually killing Gaddafi would have probably been without great consequence too. His regime is more than just his person.
There is a gain in shooting my bazooka. What was gained by dropping these bombs?
I would say an analogous scenario would be like this:
Alex is a murderer, but not wanted. Bill is a murderer and wanted dead or alive. Alex wants the reward money for bagging Bill and knows when Bill will visit a certain bar. So Alex plants a bomb in the bar and detonates it when Bill is inside. He kills a few of the other patrons, but Bill somehow escapes unharmed.
My point wasn’t that Gaddafi was threatening NATO, just that the original analogy provided wasn’t accurate. Maybe mine isn’t either, but I was trying to demonstrate the absurdity of the situation: just because someone is threatening you does not mean you can kill indiscriminately in retaliation. I was also pointing out that a bomb is not a precise weapon in the same way a gun is. You can’t drop a bomb and then say “whoops, looks like some innocents got caught up in the fight, not my fault!”
A troll left a forum by his own will?
School for children with down syndrome hit in NATO strike. No kids were in the building at the time, but it’s ridiculous. Who’s going to pay for this?