But he was the commanding officer. There was I believe that in the Nuremberg trials, one of the Wiermacht generals faced a similar charge because of a massacre of partisans by Romanian allies under his command. He was still found guilty because he was in command. Now if it can be shown that Sharon made a direct order forbidding any assault on the refugee camps then he would not be culpable. However, there is still the issue of his parachute unit's massacre of those 2 Palestinian villages during the 1956 war. Then the unit was under his direct command.
regards, larry -- Larry C. Lyons ColdFusion/Web Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer EBStor.com 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 tel: (703) 393-7930 fax: (703) 393-2659 Web: http://www.ebstor.com http://www.pacel.com email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. -- > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 10:48 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: What does this Ad mean ?? > > > His soldiers didn't do it, an allied army did. That's the issue here. > > At 10:48 AM 1/30/02, you wrote: > >> Sharon was said to be indirectly involved because his troops, > >> who were holding the villages did not stop it. > >> If you go out and slaughter people is your boss liable? > > > >I am NOT knowledgeable about this event, but, in general, > when it comes > >to the military, don't the superiors bare responsibility for their > >soldiers? Yes, if I kill someone my boss should not be held > liable - but > >I'm a civilian. > > > >-rc > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Macromedia ColdFusion 5 Training from the Source Step by Step ColdFusion http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201758474/houseoffusion Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
