Nice recitation, Ezekiel, now... would you care to apply some analysis to some facts? Oh, and by the way, recite the rest of the applicable provisions? For example, "Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." GC IV. It is easy, facile even, to make broad brush attacks when one does not have to apply analysis to one's assertions.

For example, addressing who the targets of the attack were, as opposed to (legitimately) mourning the effects. The principle rule in all laws of warfare is distinction, or did you forget that from your training? American forces make an effort at distinction and do not target non-hostile civilians. Taliban and Al Quaeda forces do not, and indeed, deliberately target civilians and non-hostiles. That is the fundamental point of distinction.

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich