It's possible. It didn't make much sense.
Yes. I have always operated on the assumption that it was a combat mission. But I think that's what makes his death lawful. Were you not just arguing that despite the lawful nature of the mission that his death was questionable since it would appear that he was given no opportunity to surrender first?
And they didn't find nuns. I don't see the relevance. Are you suggesting they would have fired on nuns just because it was a "combat" mission?
On Pakistan, we are in agreement.
I think your interpretation of the breadth and scope of that verbiage is a mite too generous. I'm fairly certain it doesn't apply to soldiers engaging the enemy in an act of war.
And quite frankly, rules of war are for losers. The whole concept of rules for war is ludicrous. Seriously. Attempting to civilize the most uncivilized, barbaric act known to man? Rules of war?
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this statement. LTC (Ret.) Tom Kratman, who describes his military service as "Infantry with a side of PsyOps," makes the point that, in a war, we always end up becoming what we're fighting. If you look at the reasons (or some of them) that our fathers and grandfathers were reluctant to talk about their actions in WWII, it's because they weren't necessarily proud of some of the things they did in response to what they enemy did to them.
In my view, the "Laws of Warfare" are designed to help us retain as much humanity as possible while simultaneously still leaving us the means to be an effective fighting force. The "Laws", if adhered to, also leave room for enemies to become otherwise once the conflict is over. While we can have no control over the barbarities inflicted upon us by our enemies, we can, to an extent, police ourselves to limit the damage to ourselves morally when we begin to respond in kind to the barbarisms inflicted on us by those who do not subscribe to the "Laws of Warfare."
