This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mieciu K (talk | contribs) at 12:59, 28 May 2006 ("Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox" infobox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:59, 28 May 2006 by Mieciu K (talk | contribs) ("Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox" infobox)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
This is a talk page for discussion of the article about the Haditha massacre It is not for discussion about the massacre itself, unless that discussion involves improving the article. Please see "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox" and "wikiquette" for information about the proper use of talk pages. |
War crime
Any intentional killing of civilians is considered a war crime. I do not understand why we need to be obtuse by including "may constitue." The only thing we can say is they "may" be innocent. However, if they are found guilty of willfully killing civilians, by definition they are guilty of war crimes.
Nomen Nescio 10:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nescio, I am as keen not to exonerate war criminals as you are. If they did what's alleged and there are no extenuating circumstances (and no, I can't think of anything myself) then yes, a war crime has occurred. However, I think it's very important that we not display any bias in such a sensitive situation, and not pre-judge any court cases which might result. That said, I'll let your reversion stand, although I suspect others might feel the need to change it. — JEREMY 11:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you object to. The article does not claim they are guilty of killing civilians. But should they be, and after it has been established the killings were intentional and without any mitigating circumstances they are war crimes. To introduce double uncertainty, 1 they may have killed, and 2 that might be a war crime, we are introducing unwarranted doubt and unreasonable bias.
Nomen Nescio 11:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you object to. Call it pre-emptive conservatism; I expect this article will be crawling with apologists shortly, and we need to be seen to be doing the right thing, as well as actually doing it. However, I think your latest change is great, and eliminates the problem. — JEREMY 11:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you object to. The article does not claim they are guilty of killing civilians. But should they be, and after it has been established the killings were intentional and without any mitigating circumstances they are war crimes. To introduce double uncertainty, 1 they may have killed, and 2 that might be a war crime, we are introducing unwarranted doubt and unreasonable bias.