Originally posted by nenothtu

So then, if an individual Iraqi kicks my door in and shoots at me, and is NOT acting on behalf of a nation, then my own state or national laws apply to the situation. If, however, he is acting on behalf of Iraq in an act of war, international law applies, since that takes the action to the level of a conflict between nations. This is why your analogy is flawed, and breaks completely down.

My analogy is not flawed.

In theory international law today allows only three situations as legal cause to go to war: out of self-defense, defense of an ally under a mutual defense pact, or sanctioned by the UN.

The US illegally invaded and occupied a country.
Period.

Originally posted by nenothtu


A "false flag" is an extraordinarily broad and generalized term, which covers a great many potetential scenarios. Your scenario, on the other hand, is very, very specific, and so can be tested by the evidence presented. You contend below that it is based upon "precedent". I'm open to being educated in the matter, and so await your evidence that there is a precendent for the scenario you present: i.e. special "Black Ops" and/or "mercenary" groups are kidnapping kids and somehow convincing them to stand in traffic solely to be run over. That is a testable hypothesis - all you have to do is present the instances where that precedent has been set. So far, although claiming at one point that there is "precedent" for such action, and at another saying "I imagine" in relation to the scenario, no evidence to back the very specifically worded statement up has been presented whatsoever.

THAT is "how so no evidence".

Where is the evidence that parents are putting their kids in the streets to stop Americans conveys for EID attacks?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nenothtu


Laws come from legislation, not Ms Manners Big Book O' Morals. Therefore, THAT'S where I think laws come from. Furthermore, until they are made "law" via that codification by legislation, they are NOT law. "Morality" and "Law" are not the same thing - not even close. If you would rather society be ruled by "morals" than by "laws", which groups morals should we run it by?

Oh so only countries, or peoples, that use a legislative body can make laws.

No. Only legislative bodies themselves make up "laws". That's what the term "legislative" means. law-making. Neither the country nor the people have much to do with it. THEY don't make "law", the legislature does.

I guess you would say that the 10 commandments were not laws.

That is correct - they were not "laws", they were "commandments". That's probably why they were not called "The 10 Laws".

They were what, advice?

They were commandments. religious rules, formulated by a deity. They really have no bearing on this discussion, since they were not made by a legislative body, nor were they promoted by the UN, nor do they have anything to do with the conduct of war, nor are they international - i.e. between nations. They are religious in nature.

And I guess legislative bodies just make up laws, and they are not based on any moral or ethical situations of the people.

In most cases, that is entirely correct. Legislative bodies don't deal in morality. There is "right and wrong", and there is "legal and illegal", and these do not overlap to any significant degree.

In some cases, laws may be influenced by what is LOCALLY perceived to be "moral", but they do not dictate morality, nor does morality dictate law. Note the use of the term "locally". Sharia "law", influenced by islamic morality, is incompatible with US law, which, when influenced by morality at all, is influenced by US morality and custom, not the islamic version of what is "moral".

This is why international law cannot admit as much "moral" influence as national law. the various moralities involved are too diverse to be reconciled.

"Morality" has nothing at all to do with the Law of War. What is it about war you think is moral?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nenothtu

So then, if an individual Iraqi kicks my door in and shoots at me, and is NOT acting on behalf of a nation, then my own state or national laws apply to the situation. If, however, he is acting on behalf of Iraq in an act of war, international law applies, since that takes the action to the level of a conflict between nations. This is why your analogy is flawed, and breaks completely down.

My analogy is not flawed.

In theory international law today allows only three situations as legal cause to go to war: out of self-defense, defense of an ally under a mutual defense pact, or sanctioned by the UN.

The US illegally invaded and occupied a country.
Period.

I'm still waiting on you to cite a LAW that makes the invasion "illegal". Is there any danger of that happening any time soon? What you cite here is not "law", it's a legal opinion, apparently pronounced by someone ashamed to attach their name to it. Further, that opinion itself pronounced the invasion legal - it was sanctioned by the UN.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by nenothtu


A "false flag" is an extraordinarily broad and generalized term, which covers a great many potetential scenarios. Your scenario, on the other hand, is very, very specific, and so can be tested by the evidence presented. You contend below that it is based upon "precedent". I'm open to being educated in the matter, and so await your evidence that there is a precendent for the scenario you present: i.e. special "Black Ops" and/or "mercenary" groups are kidnapping kids and somehow convincing them to stand in traffic solely to be run over. That is a testable hypothesis - all you have to do is present the instances where that precedent has been set. So far, although claiming at one point that there is "precedent" for such action, and at another saying "I imagine" in relation to the scenario, no evidence to back the very specifically worded statement up has been presented whatsoever.

THAT is "how so no evidence".

Where is the evidence that parents are putting their kids in the streets to stop Americans conveys for EID attacks?

1) Occam's razor. The children are there, their parents are there, and the attacks are there. So far, no evidence has been presented for a "false flag" (my god how that phrase is abused and over-used!) to show any "kidnappings" by "Black Ops" or "mercenaries". I have been a "mercenary", and can tell you that we never had time to waste on kidnapping kids to promote elaborate, secret plots that had no end purpose, other than to kill our own people and thereby make us LESS secure. We had no logical reason whatsoever to kill off our own people, who were guarding OUR OWN backs.

2) Precedent. This sort of thing has been going on forever. Good examples of the tactic have been presented in this very thread from the Vietnam war. I personally have seen 10 year olds carrying arms through the jungle in a war. Further, and more specifically, look to the Palestinians who train their children from the ground up to be "martyrs", and you will see a cultural propensity to use that very tactic.

BTW, It's IED attacks, not EID attacks. An "IED" is an "improvised explosive device". Eid is short for "Eid al Fitr", the islamic celebration of the end of Ramadan.