100th Anniversery of the Armenian Genocide

[straits]

OK let's forget about the manufacture of warfighting materials that was continuing in that specific part of Tokyo at that time. Tokyo was bombed because the US were monsters. Like Mladec or Karadzic. Of course.

You win. I give up.

You're giving Mladic and Karadzic too much credit. They aren't capable of what the US has been doing in the past few decades.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

A war crime doesn't have to be a genocide. Plenty of war crimes aren't genocides. Like those.

Again, something being a war crime or not has zero relation to how beneficial it is for your military campaigns. Intentionally killing civilians, prisoners of war etc are war crimes regardless of why you do it. Hence all those things you list are war crimes. It's not like Mladic and Karadzic would have been freed by the Hague tribunal if they had showed up with proof that committing the Srebrenica massacre freed up X large amount of Serbian troops to fight on other fronts, or like Joseph Kony would be freed from his accusations of using child soldiers if he proved that they were more effective in the style of warfare he was waging than using adults.

It should also be added that before WW2 the Allies (or Allies to be) were very vocal in condemning Franco and his German allies' bombing of cities and other civilian sites during the Spanish Civil War as crimes.

However once WW2 got going a few years later big cities were suddenly "legitimate targets" for total airborne destruction. Funny how fast these things can change eh?

Either way this is off topic.

By that definition, almost every side that fought in almost every war in human history has committed war crimes. While you could argue, convincingly, that war is inherently immoral, I believe a definition of war crimes needs to distinguish the especially heinous acts that stand out even during the most horrific of human activity.

I'm not saying I have a definition in mind. Actual definitions of war crimes seem to be a mix of schelling points, archaic and useless legal distinctions (types of bullets, etc.) and winner's justice. I do think, however that effectiveness does have to play a role in determining what is a war crime, especially in something as singular as WWII. From an act utilitarian standpoint, every day Nazi Germany wasn't defeated, thousands of Jews, Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, etc. died. Every day that the Empire of Japan wasn't defeated, thousands of Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Burmese, Indonesians, Malay, etc. died. I'm not saying those lives were foremost in the Allied High Command's priorities, but it's still important to remember that when considering what happened in that war.

Nevertheless, Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay should have been hanged.

[The Iceman of the North]

By that definition, almost every side that fought in almost every war in human history has committed war crimes. While you could argue, convincingly, that war is inherently immoral, I believe a definition of war crimes needs to distinguish the especially heinous acts that stand out even during the most horrific of human activity.

It's pointless to debate potential war crimes that took place before there were a formal agreement about what constituted war crimes, so anything happening before 1864 is not relevant. But intentional mass killing of civilians was not an integral part of modern warfare in the century before WWII. The same goes for killing POWs, at least once they had been safely interned.

Just because the US have intentionally used terror bombing of civilian targets in several wars from WWII and onwards, doesn't make it all right.

[Mr Fixit]

OK let's forget about the manufacture of warfighting materials that was continuing in that specific part of Tokyo at that time. Tokyo was bombed because the US were monsters. Like Mladec or Karadzic. Of course.

You win. I give up.

:bs:

The bombing of Tokyo killed more people than died in Hiroshima or Nagasaki: an estimated 100,000 perished in flames. No war crime at all, right?

[rocksniffer]

i stand up and say that no, bombing the enemy in war is not a crime in my opinion. all countries that have fought in war have done shit they shouldn't have but i have been in combat, under fire and frankly did not care what was dropped so long as it stopped the enemy from firing at me.

that being said i thought this was a thread aimed at remembering something that happened that should not be forgotten...namely the genocide of Armenian civilians...

perhaps we should remember that...

just saying

:smoking:

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

rocksniffer,

+1

[The Iceman of the North]

i stand up and say that no, bombing the enemy in war is not a crime in my opinion. all countries that have fought in war have done shit they shouldn't have but i have been in combat, under fire and frankly did not care what was dropped so long as it stopped the enemy from firing at me.

Easy for you to say. You haven't exactly been fighting in front of your own civilian neighbours.

But, back to the Armenians.

[rocksniffer]

Easy for you to say. You haven't exactly been fighting in front of your own civilian neighbours.

But, back to the Armenians.

not easy to say...and this is completely true...i never have had to endure that horror...

[snowleper]

i stand up and say that no, bombing the enemy in war is not a crime in my opinion. all countries that have fought in war have done shit they shouldn't have but i have been in combat, under fire and frankly did not care what was dropped so long as it stopped the enemy from firing at me.

that being said i thought this was a thread aimed at remembering something that happened that should not be forgotten...namely the genocide of Armenian civilians...

perhaps we should remember that...

just saying

:smoking:

A discussion of war crimes at least gives us an issue of complexity where people can argue the utility of acceptable civilian causalities as a means of war.

The Armenian genocide on the other hand is a much more plain issue, which gives us very little to discuss other than the grizzly details, and a generalized agreement that 'genocide is bad' ... Unless of course somebody here wants to tell us why the Ottomans were correct to dispose of its own people in this way :p

[rocksniffer]

A discussion of war crimes at least gives us an issue of complexity where people can argue the utility of acceptable civilian causalities as a means of war.

The Armenian genocide on the other hand is a much more plain issue, which gives us very little to discuss other than the grizzly details, and a generalized agreement that 'genocide is bad' ... Unless of course somebody here wants to tell us why the Ottomans were correct to dispose of its own people in this way :P

i agree these discussions are important...just not on topic

so i shall step out and search for the drunk again thread...something i am an expert in

:cheers:

[baxus]

By that definition, almost every side that fought in almost every war in human history has committed war crimes. While you could argue, convincingly, that war is inherently immoral, I believe a definition of war crimes needs to distinguish the especially heinous acts that stand out even during the most horrific of human activity.

Well, hasn't every side that fought in every war in human history killed civilians and/or forced them out of their homes at the very least?

That's a war crime, as I see it and is definitely heinous enough in my book.

i stand up and say that no, bombing the enemy in war is not a crime in my opinion. all countries that have fought in war have done shit they shouldn't have but i have been in combat, under fire and frankly did not care what was dropped so long as it stopped the enemy from firing at me.

Not trying to derail the thread, but as someone who has lived through my city and country being bombed, I can tell you that "bombing the enemy" sure can be a crime.

During spring of '99, NATO bombed what was Yugoslavia at the time, and though most targets were military there were instances of hospital grounds being hit and things like that.

Military targets are obviously fair game in war, but hospitals, schools, residential areas are not and there definitely were cases of those getting hit.

And then there is a gray area like the case of NATO bombing a railway bridge and just happened to hit it at the very moment the train with civilian passengers was crossing it, causing significant civilian casualties.

Does anyone think that happened on purpose? Only the densest people, but it still happened, innocent civilians were killed and someone should be held accountable.

[Mr Fixit]

^

Speaking of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, I am surprised you didn't mention one of the most heinous war crimes committed: the bombing of the Serbian Television headquarters which killed 16 people - cameramen, technicians, electricians, mixers, production designers, and the like. When it comes to war propaganda, only one side is entitled to it, after all.

[Shryke]

^

Speaking of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, I am surprised you didn't mention one of the most heinous war crimes committed: the bombing of the Serbian Television headquarters which killed 16 people - cameramen, technicians, electricians, mixers, production designers, and the like. When it comes to war propaganda, only one side is entitled to it, after all.

Probably wasn't mentioned because of the ruling on that bombing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_the_Radio_Television_of_Serbia_headquarters#Consequences_and_conclusions

A report conducted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) entitled "Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" said:

Insofar as the attack actually was aimed at disrupting the communications network, it was legally acceptable ... NATO’s targeting of the RTS building for propaganda purposes was an incidental (albeit complementary) aim of its primary goal of disabling the Serbian military command and control system and to destroy the nerve system and apparatus that keeps Milošević in power

[Mr Fixit]

Sure, because targeting a TV station and killing 16 civilians who worked mainly on the technical side of things is paramount to 'disabling army command and control systems'. And not, say, taking out transmitters, as HRW pointed out. Anyway, the precedent set is just horrific. Should every army in every war target and destroy enemy media, complete with people working there, because of "propaganda"?

I find the arguments in this thread quite illuminating, to be honest. Carpet bombing of cities is OK, killing enemy civilians is OK, destroying TV stations and killing media crews is OK... if the side committing said acts is the US and its allies.

ETA: The thing you linked to isn't a ruling, it's a report to the prosecutor, which is quite different. Also, if you take International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia seriously and think they'd ever accuse US or NATO of anything, think again. One of their judges from Denmark, Frederik Harhoff published a letter (before getting expelled, of course) accusing the Court President Theodor Meron, an American and former Israeli diplomat, "of exerting tenacious pressure on his colleagues". http://www.information.dk/481114

Wikileaks also have some interesting info on Meron, straight from the US embassy in Netherlands. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130618/wikileaks-cables-support-criticism-icty-judge

Diplomatic cables from the US embassy in the Hague corroborate the accusation recently put forward by the Danish judge Frederik Harhoff against the the President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Theodor Meron. In a letter the Danish daily paper B.T. made public last week The Tribunal President is alleged to have served as a US puppet and for acquitting several war criminals. Now documents from 2003 made public by WikiLeaks show that Meron had close and confidential relations with the United States government in his first term as President of the ICTY. (...) In another cable the US embassy writes 'Meron (is) the Tribunal's preeminent supporter of United States government efforts'.

'It is the perception among my former colleagues that the Tribunal President takes instructions from the US government. And the WikiLeaks documents certainly do not help his case', a former legal adviser at the Tribunal said.

[Hereward]

I think you mean "tantamount". Just saying.

[Mr Fixit]

^

Mmmh, English is not my native language, but my impression is that I used the correct phrase. 'Tantamount to' would mean 'to amount to' or 'to be equivalent to'. 'Paramount to', on the other hand, means 'of prime importance'. Though, it could be I worded it slightly awkwardly or used the wrong preposition. So, you have a bit of Stannis in you?

[baxus]

I find the arguments in this thread quite illuminating, to be honest. Carpet bombing of cities is OK, killing enemy civilians is OK, destroying TV stations and killing media crews is OK... if the side committing said acts is the US and its allies.

You are aware that history is written by the winning side, aren't you?

Do you think any of the people found guilty in Nürnberg would've even faced trial had the fortunes of war in WWII gone the other way?

Had Al Qaeda by some miracle won against US, World Trade Center would most probably be portraid as a stunning blow to the enemy's financial system.

[litechick]

So what about the flipside? If you could somehow establish that there be no damage done to civilians whatsoever, isn't it natural that generals would set up HQ in hospitals or schools? Is that OK?

What about the definition of a non-combatant? If it is wrong to bomb a munitions factory isn't it also wrong to kill people who were drafted or otherwise impressed into service?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Litchick,

A draftee is still a direct combatant. As such, under the laws of war, they'd be a proper military target.

[baxus]

So what about the flipside? If you could somehow establish that there be no damage done to civilians whatsoever, isn't it natural that generals would set up HQ in hospitals or schools? Is that OK?

I saw quite a few soldiers in schools during the '99 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.

Schools were out anyway, so buildings were empty and military used them for their non-combat stuff - military courts and stuff like that.

Hospitals, on the other hand, are a whole different thing.

Since you can't really close the hospital or mix military personnel with patients, I don't see how hospitals could be effectively used as military objects.