Reply #76: I said:

[bemildred]

"If the words "war crime" mean anything at all, this is a war crime"

The qualifier is there for a reason. I'm not at all sure that "war
crime" does make sense, it is sort of a tautology, all war is criminal
in nature, and aggressive (as opposed to defensive) wars especially
so. In any case, the notion of criminal requires the notion of law,
and one must then inquire as to whose law it is that rules the
situation, and how it is to be enforced, and by whom? As you point
out, one rapidly finds that the idea of "crime" falls apart once the
civil peace is disrupted, there are no rules in war.

Basicly, one is a fool to unleash the dogs of war in the expectation
that some sort of rules or law will protect one from the consequences
of unleashed violence. "Live by the sword, die by the sword".

In most cases being a "war criminal" seems to mean you lost the war
and someone wants to make an example of you for political advantage.

I will make this deal: I will stop making moral arguments about the
actions of US servicemembers, if I don't have to listen to similar
crap about the actions of those we are fighting with. If I don't
have to listen to anymore propagandistic crap about "terrorists who
only want to kill as many innocents as possible" then I will overlook
the moral vacuity of bombing the crap out of civilians at 2:45AM on
the pretext that maybe there might have been some bads guys around too.

I share your hope for my peaceful future. I wish you the same.

Edit: some spelling issues.