What? How can you say that if the orders he followed were orders that authorized him to shoot and kill unarmed women and children? At this point the wording is almost a moot point, the fact that his orders authorized him to do this at all is repugnant.Yes, that;s right. And so, absent that, its impossible to argue that the orders he was given were flawed, illegal, immoral or depraved.
It's a hell of lot more iron clad than "shoot first, don't bother asking any questions."I'm suggesting that the 'unarmed women and children' argument isnt iron-clad, given that 'unarmed women and children' often carry explosives.
Absolutely. What I don't agree with is gunning women and children down without first establishing they are carrying explosives.You DO agree that woment and children carrying explosives are a legitimate target, yes?
You WARN them to halt first. In any number of ways. You don't just arbitrarily decide to cut them down with no warning whatsoever. I'm pretty sure I already addressed this point.So, I ask again -- as the sniper, how do you make that determination?