Nevertheless, if napalm and white phosphorus were deliberately used against civilians, it could be a war crime, but not crime involving the use a WMDs.
And here is where the difficulty lies. Those insurgents that are attacking US and Iraqi troops are not members of a military force, so some consider them civilians. However, they are combatants and legitimate targets of war. Deliberately attacking noncombatants can be a war crime. However, if combatants surround themselves with noncombatants, then it's inevitable that some innocent (and perhaps some not so innocent) noncombatants will be killed. This is a tragedy but not a war crime.
Likewise, combatants aren't supposed to deliberately attack targets like churches, mosques, and hospitals. However, when combatants (military or insurgent) conduct attacks from mosques, hospitals, schools, etc., then those become legitimate targets.
Current Events » in reply to You are probably correct
re: You are probably correct
The whole thread (28 posts)
- Evidence of US Use of Chemical Weapons on Civilians
- Sounds like more anti-American propaganda.
- More evidence of people who don't know what they are talking about.
- Funny thing about definitions
- re: Evidence (Tailwind II)
- WMDs, against civilians. Yer tax dollars at work, and for what? (n/t)