Yeah, Jesus is both idealist and pragmatic. We're talking the pragmatic side right now though. I thought about it, and the Amish are doing pretty well so maybe you should join them. However, it still applies that then you don't act warlike about people who disagree with you, and you'd have to lay off the calls for Israel to be prosecuted too because no ideal pacifist claims the right to punish anyone else by force. I talk to these zero-aggression people often, and so if you want to go that way consistently you get to lay off the verbal attacks and the calls for the destruction of the destroyers.

If nobody has the right to determine if another party has committed crimes against humanity (i.e. to judge them unworthy of continuing to have their own human rights), except Jesus, then the criminals continue apace and you don't have the right to stop them. If you do have the right to call for them (e.g. Israel) to be punished by force, then you do believe in the right to judge them unworthy of human rights. Two ways, pick one, you can't pick both and be consistent. (What I tell people is that if you want to judge a whole race including children, you need to have the case heard that the children are contributing to belligerence, and nobody here tries to meet that bar at all; the closest argument is that Jewish, or Arab, children are indoctrinated to the lifestyle, but that is hardly proof of choice.) There is a time to judge, and it's only for very serious cases, and that's a consistent standard. It's not consistent to say never to judge and then to judge, which is what I see you doing.

I picked a case where there's been relative agreement on the analysis. You're picking cases where there's wild disagreement on the fog of war, and you're (apparently) gravitating only to one side of the sourcing without any critical review (that's called bias). I told you, the girls' school has many competing interpretations right now, and seeing as this is Conspiracies and I don't believe in Sandy Hook either this has all the marks of a bigger Sandy Hook. It's likely it'll remain unsolved officially, while the theorists put together the best solution. But you have judged it already and called it my team. Well, even in the worst case, since I'm an American and some blame America, what should I do to fill up the suffering of Christ about this event? Should I be appointed to forfeit my life to Iranis because they claim my club took innocent lives? I do believe some people are called to similar ministry, but I don't think the call stems from another anon who has an axe to grind about the issue. If I've offended you I could make it up, but when I've asked you what I could do in good conscience we haven't gotten that answered either. You keep attributing motive with words like murder and charges about my intent, and that's not logical. I write because I have hope that you'll come to answer the questions I ask, but if you devolve to the illogic then nothing proceeds of it.

If your Israel figure is correct (and I hear the Iran figures are similar incidentally), even though it's only based on one side and for the sake of argument we'll say neither side is trustworthy, then what do you want done? We can say "big if true", and we can say "bad optics", and then, well, it's happened and it's in the ICJ. You could take the law into your own hands, but oh you don't believe in that. But the amount of ranting you do does amount to warfare because it's dehumanization of your enemy, and Jesus amplifies "do not murder" to "do not call your brother retarded" (that's an accurate translation).

All the little kids getting doubled tapped in the head and genitals by snipers.

That's not anywhere near 50,000 and, based on the evidence you've presented so far, isn't above 0. Present your evidence and then tell us what to do about it. If "what to do" means "call them murderers", you've declared war on them by abridging their human rights. I point out, you're free to, but your rulings can be reviewed by other humans too. In particular, when you call them murderers but you don't allow them the right to call other humans murderers, Golden Rule fail.

If there are intentional war crimes, of course they should be punished. Who do you trust to make that determination, Graph? Only yourself? Is this a case where the judge should be without sin? (The ICJ is plenty sinful but I trust them as having general accord as being authorized to proceed; if they blow it then Jesus will come after them at the right time.)

I can't comment on Dresden not knowing the facts. If you mean it as an example of the general question, I'll answer after you do because I asked you the same. We might both finesse it the same way by agreeing it's a tough call for the warrior to make on the field on a case basis, but you don't seem to accept that. Now, I still can't approve your phrasing because of the bias issue, but I'll try to give a guideline answer. One intentional civilian death is too many, because as you pointed out it's a war crime and the army should punish such a person, and if they don't then the nations at large may agree to punish; but those that are judged unintentional deaths are not war crimes and are not to be numbered (unless the numbering itself is taken as circumstantial evidence that some were intentional; though courts don't usually rule that way). However, all modern armies already know that and, like modern police forces, admittedly protect themselves with paper trails and brother coverage to claim that every such situation (with very rare exceptions) is indeed "provably" (i.e. documentedly) unintentional. So maybe we do need to move the question further, since you don't pick up on intentionality but assume it (as if the aggressor is always intentional and of course the proposed "civilian" is always unintentional in his baiting; but many nations also admittedly train people to pose as innocent solely to paint another as the aggressor). The question is quis custodiet ipsos custodes, in this case, Who Judges? You've judged one side as murderers, the other side as innocents among a vanishing number of (also judged by you) valid targets. The point of the war is that both sides disagree on the valuations, and you're taking one of the two sides on most of these reflexively. And, oh look, the side is always against Israel and America, but that's not important right now.

So the framing, as if it creates a dilemma, is not problematic if unpacked. Ultimately, does your standard by which you judge murder admit of any colloquy with other sovereigns, or are you dogmatic about it whether or not others might charge it with illogic? Because if it's impossible for you to change, there's no point in my going on. It's possible for me to change, because for me everything is on the table except the One who holds me. But I don't see you being open to discussion, seeing as you continue to use bias and prejudice in your allegedly unbiased framing. In my judgment. Once we've gotten an understanding on whether we are dialoguing to create a joint answer, or whether there's no swaying for you, then we can talk about how that standard (murder) should be applied in reviewing partisan evidence. But you don't seem to be interested in reviewing all evidence based on your conclusive language. So ultimately my second question might be: What else is there to discuss? If my purpose is not to convince you because you've convinced me you don't want to be convinced, I would indicate that by bowing out. But so far I remain doggedly convinced, against the evidence, that you are open to being convinced.