Wounded enemy soldiers? Bwahahahah! The dead man was not a wounded
enemy soldier. He was a terrorist. He was rabble. He was a common thug
and murderer and, as such, he has no right to expect to be treated as if he
were covered under the Geneva Convention. He probably realized this.

I wonder why you and the other pacifist ilk do not.

CN

"Dave" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:32:31 -0800, (Thom Stewart) said:

You condemn Ganz view,which I'll not defend, but you say nothing about
Oz's who has already labelled the Marine
a War Criminal. Do you consider that fair judgement?

Just selecting one example of the consistent use of the technique. Oz
doesn't follow me about like a puppy dog responding to my every post as Ganz
does, so I'm less conscious of the nonsense he spouts.

Dave, I wonder if we'll hear the same cries of indignation for the death
of the Care worker who was killed by the Terrorist *******s! There was
certainly no mistaking her status.

I say again, one doesn't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad
behavior. Kidnapping and killing civilians is bad behavior. Shooting wounded
enemy soldiers without good reason (if that's how it turns out) is also bad
behavior. Neither justifies the other.