Thoughtcrime - 03 Mar 2013

At what point can a state no longer be considered a neutral party in an armed conflict?

Is it when it sells weapons or supplies to one or more sides (especially those which could not be obtained otherwise)?  What about specifically facilitating weapons and supply shipments through a third party?

Or what about openly backing one side by supporting their government with funding, gifting (only) them medical supplies and food, training their soldiers, offering tactical advice, and "doing other things"?

Previous Thoughtcrime                                                                                      Next Thoughtcrime 

No comments:

Post a Comment