I’m not sidestepping anything

I’m not sidestepping anything @ComicDaveSmith I’m taking your “I’m just saying” comment and applying logic, facts, law, and centuries of established frameworks that govern how war is conducted. The laws of armed conflict—international humanitarian law—are not theories. They are… https://t.co/i5KLWYRpzU

— John Spencer (@SpencerGuard) April 13, 2025

Text:

I’m not sidestepping anything @ComicDaveSmith I’m taking your “I’m just saying” comment and applying logic, facts, law, and centuries of established frameworks that govern how war is conducted. The laws of armed conflict—international humanitarian law—are not theories. They are codified rules that societies have agreed upon to regulate warfare.

Your analogy fails because it ignores one of the most critical distinctions: the concept of intent. In war, intent is defined and applied very differently than in domestic criminal law. That difference matters.

What you call sidestepping is actually your own misunderstanding. You’re trying to apply what you know from one domain to a completely different legal and moral framework—without knowing the rules of that framework.

Your questions reflect a fundamental gap in knowledge. Instead of engaging with facts, you rely on emotional arguments and flawed comparisons. This isn’t a debate. It’s a revealing display of how dangerous it is to argue about war without understanding the laws that govern it.