sherpa Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 8 minutes ago, Roundybout said: No, we act civilized and follow international laws. That is what sets us apart from said dealers. We defend our people. There is no "international law" violation, as yet proven.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago (edited) 5 hours ago, sherpa said: They are not "combatants" is any historically accepted sense. the white house disagrees https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/law-allows-no-survivors-fox-201059022.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAD8q5yuu1XD9Tt4AI8jOV5gYujsa0d0hzfA8_V_0qocLhNHUU79MmMXNRZiQgc3gupOg6hMcGU_9QtrXQN4o6zdDL_WttGZmb1TvkADLS4TFR5UtIfuHRKRc0-7zW9HhRC8snvXAdGHAAdK_e5wsymU03eFaPM3TUXQyNo2WaU_W “The strike conducted on September 2nd was conducted in self-defense to protect Americans and vital United States interests. The strike was conducted in international waters and in accordance with the law of armed conflict,” Leavitt replied. Therefore, this is an armed conflict between enemy combatants. Like Penn State, I also posted multiple references from experts in military law who felt this action was illegal. The fact that you're a veteran doesn't make your opinion conclusive. Edited 3 hours ago by Joe Ferguson forever
sherpa Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 14 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: the white house disagrees https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/law-allows-no-survivors-fox-201059022.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAD8q5yuu1XD9Tt4AI8jOV5gYujsa0d0hzfA8_V_0qocLhNHUU79MmMXNRZiQgc3gupOg6hMcGU_9QtrXQN4o6zdDL_WttGZmb1TvkADLS4TFR5UtIfuHRKRc0-7zW9HhRC8snvXAdGHAAdK_e5wsymU03eFaPM3TUXQyNo2WaU_W “The strike conducted on September 2nd was conducted in self-defense to protect Americans and vital United States interests. The strike was conducted in international waters and in accordance with the law of armed conflict,” Leavitt replied. Therefore, this is an armed conflict between enemy combatants. Like Penn State, I also posted multiple references from experts in military law who felt this action was illegal. The fact that you're a veteran doesn't make your opinion conclusive. Absolute nonsense. There is no "convention" that the US is signatory to that extends combatant rights to people from no discernable country or military force that are engaged in criminal activity.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 1 minute ago, sherpa said: Absolute nonsense. There is no "convention" that the US is signatory to that extends combatant rights to people from no discernable country or military force that are engaged in criminal activity. Do you believe the WH will walk the statement back? I don't. We'll see. If either the senate or the house committees find the actions illegal,, they'll likely send it to the military courts. As we've illustrated, there are many military legal experts that disagree with you. It's not as cut and dried as you make it appear. At the very least, it's a complex issue. 1
Roundybout Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 49 minutes ago, sherpa said: We defend our people. There is no "international law" violation, as yet proven. They admitted what they did.
sherpa Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 7 minutes ago, Roundybout said: They admitted what they did. i guess this post makes sense to you.
Roundybout Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 1 hour ago, sherpa said: i guess this post makes sense to you. Hegseth is now passing the buck and blaming his admiral for it lmao 1
SectionC3 Posted 49 minutes ago Posted 49 minutes ago 5 hours ago, sherpa said: I am guessing you are young, have no experience in this, and naïve. Don't take that as an insult. I admire your sincerity. I just have watched this for decades. They pose a threat. Make no mistake. Suicide, by allowing this to continue, is not an "honorable," nor "Christian" solution. Who is "they?" 1
Recommended Posts