How Can Killing Civilians be a War Crime 12 01 2013

How Can Killing Civilians be a War Crime 12 01 2013 We here of and read of this one a lot in the paper. A man on the ground has mowed down a nearby village of Civilians and is guilty of the war crime of killing civilians! If he is guilty than every bomber pilot that ever dropped a bomb is also guilty of the same war crime of the killing of civilians!!!! So therefore he cannot be guilty or the dropping of a bomb or even the placement of a landmine is also the equivalent of the killing of civilians and a WAR CRIME! Often that man on the ground in the army will indeed be confronted by women and children wielding guns! That is the nature of some women in war zones! And would you expect it to be any other way; that she is supposed to bend over to ever communist that rolls through her country in tanks until she is infertile? She and her children have a right to kill anyone that comes it fighting against her husband in war. So that army ground man is supposed to die at her hand, while she protects her husband who is a legitimate combatant and then the village of civilians a kilometer to the north is bombed? It is okay for the fighter pilot to kill civilians because he did not have the precision of the ground soldier? I just don't buy the argument that there is a difference between a bomber killing civilians and a ground man! The bomber isn't even in as much immediate danger as the ground man. If the rule does not make any sense it is made to pre justify innocence. Every time a commander in chief ordered a bombing he did indeed authorize the killing of civilians! There is no weaseling your way out of it! This is all horse hookey logic! What is it really? It is subjectively determining by rank/division who can commit the war crime of killing civilians and who cannot? What is important to consider is that the result is exactly the same in both cases, civilians were killed. So it is either a War crime or it isn't! And Conventional wars are fought with bombs so it cannot be a War Crime! Are we to say that no wars are to be fought with bombs so that no war crimes can be committed? If that were true then War itself would be a War Crime! So it is indeed a War Crime to wage war? But when War is waged against us are we supposed to acquiesce so that we don't commit a war crime? We are supposed to attack an enemy on a foreign soil because they attacked us and then bend over and die so we don't commit a war crime. Who is it that raised those children to men that waged war on us in the first place? It was women wasn't it! And indeed a war crime used to be defined as killing women and children. But today we have women serving in our military! We are not even supposed to have a military in times of peace per our Constitution. But per that definition allowing women to serve in the military and be killed in war is in effect a war crime. But we already know through common sense that it is a responsible adult woman's duty to protect her home in a time of war. So indeed we send over one of our women into a foreign land and she is to be killed by a civilian woman over their because it was a civilian woman? Who are you trying to fool? What do you take the general intelligence of the world population to be? This is really rich people playing God with the rest of us and trying to make it seem like we are breaking the rules during war. In other words if they can't get us to break the rules in any other way in society they put us to War so that we break the rules of the war they created? And of course give the orders to indiscriminately bomb when they deem appropriate and kill civilians in the process. These are the children of breweries and taverns (including the bars in the mansions/homes) that make up these rules. If I were President I would not prosecute any ground man that killed a civilian? But wait, what if that were my good mother that was shot instead of some wretched hag? The point being it is the offspring of wretched hags that lead the good into wars! The wretched hag has no place in the United States or in power anywhere in the world. So indeed what we need is the ability to diagnose who the wretched hag and her offspring is so that we can prevent her from starting a war and killing the brave who would fight in defense of her false public persona? That mud hut hag would be smiling at one moment and at the next she is running out of the mud hut with a gun and mowing down your entire platoon with it. A war crime would instead be torture and rape to me. Maybe I wrote a little more than I needed to in order to make my point and hence it watered down all the point that I really wanted to make. Bombing being the equivalent of killing civilians and therefore a war crime. There is a load bass electromagnetic field type noise that distracts me when I come to the crux of good points and I have to circumvent what they were going to be written as by writing more in order to get back to the good point. Why isn't that a War Crime? It is really the greatest evidence of what has been sending us to war! I have thought this way about this issue all my life; even when I was a boy! Thomas Paul Murphy Originally published on 12 01 2013 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com Copyright 2013 Thomas Paul Murphy A conclusion being that there was some kind of shift in the Demographic structure of the United States whereby there were not enough men to serve in the military and gays and women were allowed to enlist? What does the military in times of peace amount to? An overflow mechanism whereby when enough people do not graduate with high school and college degrees they are forced to join the military out of having no other place to go and a false sense of patriotism. And when the military is filled to a sufficient amount of people that roller coaster then leaves the station in the direction of a war for them to fight in? One might look at this from a distance through the eyes of a man and say it is all in the name of maintaining profit streams created by beer and drugs? They can't be educated and yet they are not the wealthy so they are sent to die; in the name of the wealthy; after the wealthy have chosen mates from them like the queen did the slave Spartacus? Or the oil prince has sex with whatever American woman he wants for money? She comes back to the U.S. after being a palace sodomite with wealth and money; if she can get away and is not killed? And who really controls Islam? Could it be the opposite of who we might think it is?