- Joined
- Jul 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,923
- Reaction score
- 1,738
- Location
- Staffs, England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Never said that or implied it.
Well surely by citing 'war crimes' as an example of why one side is not preferable to the other (unless I have you wrong) you are lending it moral value (or at least value of some consequence) ? i think it makes more sence to assess the value of killing pows in itself rather then looking at the legality of it as if it actually means something. Which again brings us to the question of what the rebels are to do with POWs if not kill them?
I wouldn't even endorse killing POW's i just think the act needs to be judged for what it was, an act for desperation when no other option was available, which contrasts quite strongly with bludgeoning a civilian population into accepting an unjust form of government.
Of course they are Dave! Remember, anyone who rebels against people we don't like are the good guys! Even if they do have AQ in them and even if they do want an Islamic state.
Are the FSA supposed to perform background checks as well now? I would accept help from Satan himself if i were in their position.
Last edited: