“(Nationalism is) a set of beliefs taught to each generation in which the Motherland or the Fatherland is an object of veneration and becomes a burning cause for which one becomes willing to kill the children of other Motherlands or Fatherlands”– Howard Zinn
Who is/are the Human Rights Watch to attempt to dictate the behavior of those fighting a regime that will literally cordon off and level entire districts?
What kind of organization comprised of Communications-Majoring Armchair Generals would try to pull this stunt?
Chivalry stands when you’re mounted and armored, lance in hand, your opponents standing before you barefoot with pitchforks.
Chivalry doesn’t go very far when your uncle was tortured, indiscriminate shelling killed your niece, and you don’t know where your family is.
This simply isn’t reasonable, especially in regards to execution.
What is the difference between opening fire on a solider and a clean execution after information has been extracted? A few folk tales?
The brazen rule is a fact of life.
“End Kidnappings, Forced Confessions, and Executions.”
Syria is the last place on earth I’d try to push that agenda. How about south of the American border, where the world turns a blind eye to a civil war of Scarface wannabes? Has Darfur become blase? Why didn’t the HRW take the time to criticize the tactics of the Tamil Tigers? Why weren’t they embedded with the Iraqi insurgent, rapping their knuckles whenever a solider chewed with his mouth open?
Why isn’t the HRW chiding the Afghan mobs murdering and destroying over burnt paper they can’t produce themselves? Yes, of course their women should be allowed to smuggle whatever they desire into a prison. They might even be men! That’s the whole point! That’s ok, though. Why not excoriate Al-Shabab?
I’d like to congratulate the HRW for telling insurgents they must not execute. Your actions are, at least in this case, officially worthless.