Re:Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'
by throwaway98237 on Monday October 17, 2016 @12:19PM
(#12726466)
I deleted my comment because I didn't see a reply from you and wasn't certain my comment was correctly speaking to your points because I just don't get your comment. Since I wasn't certain my response was speaking to the points, I removed it so as not to muddy the conversation.
Don't appreciate your aggressive tone.
Re:Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'
by berntb on Monday October 17, 2016 @12:22PM
(#12726500)
Like this, then:
You started by arguing that following the laws of war is terrorism. That subject of law have been really discussed, there are lots of academic papers. I'd be happy to see references?
And your follow up was just not possible to parse. Please read Byer's article, it taught me a lot on the subject.
Here is my standard reference about the subject. Note that it is critical of the US -- and that ROE is still followed quite closely. Compare that to [terrorists and non democracies].
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n04/michael-byers/the-laws-of-war-u...
(Are you really surprised by the content of this answer..?)
----
Edit: My answer to throwaway98237's deleted follow up comment:
>> a small band of tribes from Afghanistan
>> Also, the "laws of war" have evolved over time.
You went from: Setting an equal sign between terrorists and real armies (which use legal weapons psychological warfare against enemy soldiers, not against civilians).
To: Excusing terrorists because (a) some of them also do guerrilla warfare and (b) because the laws of war were a bit different 50+ years ago?
That is just not coherent.
Bye.