See You In The Hague

How ridiculous is this?

Six hundred million gamers could be war criminals, Red Cross says

THE Red Cross is investigating whether 600 million gamers are violating the Hague and Geneva conventions when they kill and blow stuff up for fun.

Delegates at the 31st International Conference of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Red Crescent raised the concerns over the potential “International Humanitarian Law” violations – which can constitute war crimes – during a workshop in Geneva.

“Exactly how video games influence individuals is a hotly debated topic, but for the first time, Movement partners discussed our role and responsibility to take action against violations of IHL in video games,” the Red Cross wrote in its daily bulletin.

See also:
Could Playing Videogames Be a War Crime?
Red Cross: 600m videogamers may be war criminals
War Crimes in Video Games Draw Red Cross Scrutiny
Are You a Video Game War Criminal?
Red Cross Investigating Virtual War Crimes
Red Cross Would Like Rules of War Applied to Video Games [Updated]
Red Cross: Violent video games violate international law
The Red Cross and Six Hundred Million Hague Convention Violations
Should the Geneva Conventions Be Applied to Video Games?
Should video games respect international war crimes law?
Red Cross vows not to prosecute video gamers for war crimes
Gamers are safe from war crimes prosecution
Red Cross: Gamers safe from war crimes prosecution

Whew, well, it’s good to know that the ICRC isn’t going to prosecute video gamers, so we dodged a bullet there. However, it’s incredibly troubling and well beyond insane that they’re even thinking about it. If you’re thinking about donating to the Red Cross this holiday season remember, there’s a huge difference between the American Red Cross and the International Red Cross.

/the former does good and important relief work, while the latter is just plain bat[expletive deleted] crazy

Definitely Not Mission Creep In A Not War

There’s nothing to see here, move along, it’s all just part of enforcing the U.N. mandated humanitarian no fly zone to, ahem, protect civilians. It’s definitely not ramping up NATO offensive military operations in support of one side in a civil war.

Liam Fox denies Apache strikes are a change of tactics

The Apaches hit targets near the Libyan town of Brega during the latest wave of Nato strikes against forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the MoD said.

The Defence Secretary, epeaking at a security forum in Singapore, said that the use of British Apache attack helicopters in Libya was a logical continuation of the Nato-led military operation against Muanmar Gaddafi’s forces and did not mean that fighter jet attacks had failed.

“It’s not plan B at all,” said Dr Fox.

“The use of the attack helicopters is a logical extension of we have already been doing. We already have fast jets in action, this gives us a chance to target new targets in a way we weren’t able to do.

See also:
NATO uses attack helicopters for first time in Libya air assault
British, French helicopters strike Gadhafi troops
U.K., French helicopters strike Qaddafi troops
NATO Attack Helicopters Strike Libya Targets for First Time
NATO helicopters hit targets in Libya
Combat helicopters enter Libya fray
British, French helicopters strike Gadhafi troops
Army Apache helicopters launch first British helicopter strikes in Libya against Gaddafi’s forces
British Apache helicopters strike Gaddafi’s forces for first time
Night strikes by French Tigre helicopters
NATO launches helicopter strikes in Libya

So now NATO is using attack helicopters, where the hell in U.N. Resolution 1973 is that authorized? The current NATO operations are now way beyond what was ever intended or mandated by the original, authorized, humanitarian U.N. mission. Seriously, can ground troops be far behind the attack helicopters?

/just how kinetic does a humanitarian kinetic military action have to get before one may dare call it direct, offensive, one sided, military intervention in a civil war?