I can play your little game much BETTER than you darling. Once again you put words in my mouth in VAIN. Of course you KNOW I NEVER said that. Bombing Berlin on PURPOSE after an ACCIDENTAL bombing of London is, to use your words, criminal. Too bad being a wiseass here is not subject to moderation.So wait, it's all fine and dandy for the Luftwaffe to bomb London, but not for the Royal Air Force to bomb Berlin? Give me a break! In all seriousness, do you believe the RAF should have just sat back? Please...
Once AGAIN I never SAID it violated any so-called convention. Some "conventions" are not defined by politicians. The more you talk the more your TRUE colors come out. Hip hip...I've already stated that the Berlin raid was retaliatory, but whereabouts in the Geneva Convention will you be able to find a specific law that was violated by the raid?
I would rather get 4 teeth pulled in a row than try changing your opinion. But I do enjoy shining a light on your poppycock. (smile)b]It was not a war crime[/b] - it was a justified measure of aerial warfare. You will not change my opinion on this, so don't bother trying.
Blimy redcoat. We kicked your butts 200 years ago and saved it some 60 yrs ago. Even though your empire wasn't the same post WWII. But I do like your shoes.Ooh! We are are feeling a little anti-British today, aren't we? Well, you can call me a "Redcoat" any day of the week, just don't be surprised when I take it as a compliment!
If you believe that the raid was a war crime, find a law in the Geneva Convention regarding the International Laws of Warfare, that the raid violated.
Blah blah blah..........show me the MORAL justification for it in there. All's fair in love and war but do get off your high horse ol chap.Now, according to the Geneva Convention, the aerial bombardment of cities is prohibited only if the target is declared an "Open City" - my interpretation of such as law is as follows:
Take a gander at this one -- The TARGET in question BEING related to uncle churchy having a boner for AH? Look that one up....heh.1. That the target will have absolutely no way in which to defend itself from the subesquant aerial bombardment.
2. The target in question bears no relation whatsoever to the enemy war effort - i.e. no industrial production sites are located inside
Sure I do. Ready? War crime -- war crime -- war crime! nah nah nah Get your HEAD outta the BOOKS (and perhaps another part of your anatomy) and especially after your HIGH PRAISE of hop-along-harris and JUSTIFY to YOURSELF -- nevermind me -- how a retaliatory attack responding to an ACCIDENT is justified in your book. If you can justify that -- it doesn't make YOU any better than those you cry about.Now if you claim to be more of an expert of the laws of aerial warfare as stated by the Geneva Convention, then by all means, go ahead an prove my above statement wrong. Cite the specific law which the raid on Berlin in the Summer of 1940 violated. Otherwise, you have no means by which to label the raid a war crime.