we say terrorists kill innocent people...

Wow, those are some big questions you are raising here. I'll try to respond without completely leaving the topic of this thread...

Cyracuz wrote:

Is it a war crime to defend oneself?

The answer is: maybe. The problem with your question is that you are mixing two entirely different categories: attack - defense vs. valid military means - war crime.

Acting in self defense might be a moral justification to enter into a war, to launch a counter attack, to subsequently attack the country that has attacked you.

Quite apart from that, a war crime is a war crime, no matter whether it is committed in self defense or during an attack on another country. Acting in self defense is, in my opinion, no moral justification for committing a war crime.

Cyracuz wrote:

The nervegas might have been used in defense in the given example.

I think that first we would have to agree that the use of chemical weapons, just like the use of biological weapons or torture, is exceedingly cruel and it is therefore desirable to categorically avoid using them in warfare.

Therefore, in any situation where you are in a position to make a conscious choice about the methods employed and you decide on using exceedingly cruel methods, I would say you are therefore guilty of committing a war crime.

Acting in self defense or not doesn't make a big difference, in my opinion. As I said before, it might be a justification to employ volatile means at all, but it is no justification for employing exceedingly cruel means.

Cyracuz wrote:

Also, to spread terror among the troops of your enemy is considered wise tactics at times.

Are you establishing a categorical rule here? If you are saying that it is wise tactics to spread terror among the troops of your enemy, aren't you implying that it is wise tactics for your enemy to spread terror among your troops?

If you're saying it might be desirable for you to torture, gas or poison your enemy "occasionally", aren't implying that the same is justified for your enemy to reach his goals?

Cyracuz wrote:

By your definition of terrorism and war crime, old europe, the entire wealth of the western civilisation is founded upon war crimes and terrorism.

I wouldn't say that. A good part of the entire wealth of the western civilisation is also due to the ingenuity of individuals or whole governments, to clever diplomacy and to trade with other nations.

Another part of the the entire wealth of the western civilisation is due to conventional warfare, historically (before the US existed as a nation) mostly between the European nations and colonial powers like Spain, Portugal, France, Britain, the Netherlands etc., or their wars with and in colonized countries.

But yes, a part of the entire wealth of the western civilisation, at least in the past, is the result of such methods as slavery or genocide on indigenous populations.

Cyracuz wrote:

Btw, isn't it an incorrect use of term to talk about 'a warcrime in peacetime'? Unless the crime is comitted in a war, isn't it just crime?

It's an attempt at defining "terrorism", other than saying "terrorism is what terrorists do". I think it's not such a bad analogy, as it implies the magnitude and the means used vis-a-vis a crime like, say, murder.

Cyracuz wrote:

Lastly, the way I see it, the attack on the twin towers, for instance, was not a case of 'warcrime in peacetime'. USA hasn't had 'peacetime' in decades, if ever. It just picks it's fights well away from home. Just because all the fighting in the current wars happens abroad, the wars are happening in the US too.

Oh, I can't answer that. This whole topic about "perpetual war" is very interesting, but I think somehow beyond the scope of this thread.

I would further submit that I would see no difference between war crimes and terrorism. Therefore, if you would want to maintain that the USA really were "at war" with al Qaeda before 9/11 and the attacks were an "act of war" (I'm not saying I agree with that assessment), you would still have to say that the attacks were a war crime of significant magnitude.

(On the other hand, there are currently more civilians being killed in Iraq every month than people died in the 9/11 attacks...)

0 Replies

Thanks for the good answers old europe.

old europe wrote:

Acting in self defense is, in my opinion, no moral justification for committing a war crime.

I see what you mean. But a nervegas assault in not automatically a war crime. Or is it? Problem with gas it that it is very unpredictable. As predictable as the wind to be precise.

Quote:

Are you establishing a categorical rule here? If you are saying that it is wise tactics to spread terror among the troops of your enemy, aren't you implying that it is wise tactics for your enemy to spread terror among your troops?

To deprive soldiers of moral and the belief that they're the stronger is a well known strategic maneuver well used through history.

Quote:

A good part of the entire wealth of the western civilisation is also due to the ingenuity of individuals or whole governments, to clever diplomacy and to trade with other nations.

Yes, the ingenuity of the slave traders who devised a way to transport millions of africans to america as property. Among others.
As for clever diplomacy, ok. But for the rest, I'd not call it so much trade with other nations as 'raping other nations'.

But I agree with your last statement, that 9/11 was a warcrime of some magnitude, IF war were declared before that day. If not it was merely a crime of some magnitude, but no less cruel.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Thanks for the good answers old europe.

Heheheheheee.... Yeah, it's quite an interesting discussion here....

Cyracuz wrote:

I see what you mean. But a nervegas assault in not automatically a war crime. Or is it? Problem with gas it that it is very unpredictable. As predictable as the wind to be precise.

I don't know much about the predictability of nerve gas, but, as far as I know, the means and methods of distributing it have "improved" somewhat from the way it was used in WWI - when gas canisters were tossed in front of the enemy lines, when the wind was favorable. I don't really see how this would be important though.

I think at the core of this discussion is the consideration that there are certain types of warfare which inflict an exceeding cruelty upon the enemy and which are therefore even more condemnable than others. Morally.

Just in the same way that we, as a society, jugde about the various "moral" degrees when one person kills another person, we, as a society, have made up our minds that there are varying degrees of how war may be waged.

Of course it somehow an artificial line, saying that killing and maiming people with bullets, rockets and bombs is okay, but poisoning, gassing or napalming is not. However, it's a line you will have to draw sooner or later if you take the stance that, in a very few cases (like in self defense or in the case of a humanitarian intervention to stop, for example, a genocide), "waging war" or employing military means is justifiable.

Then again, there are enough people who are saying that it is never justifiable, and who act accordingly. Like, for example, the Amish.

Cyracuz wrote:

To deprive soldiers of moral and the belief that they're the stronger is a well known strategic maneuver well used through history.

I wouldn't argue against "demoralizing" the enemy. Actually, that might even be one of the nicer ways of fighting a war. I'm arguing against "terrorizing" the enemy, though, and I think there's quite a difference between the two.

Cyracuz wrote:

Yes, the ingenuity of the slave traders who devised a way to transport millions of africans to america as property. Among others.
As for clever diplomacy, ok. But for the rest, I'd not call it so much trade with other nations as 'raping other nations'.

Very true. And it's no excuse to say it's just "human nature", seeing how some of the peoples of those continents that were "colonialized" didn't really need the European conquistadores to commit atrocities of quite some scope. If I remember correctly, the Aztecs, for example, having conquered quite significant parts of Central America, killed up to 40,000 people on a single day as a sacrifice to their god.

Not very nice. Of course, the reaction of the Spanish was, "Damn, we have to stop these atrocities! Let's kill them off and enslave the rest. That'll teach them."

Cyracuz wrote:

But I agree with your last statement, that 9/11 was a warcrime of some magnitude, IF war were declared before that day. If not it was merely a crime of some magnitude, but no less cruel.

Aye. I, personally, would still call it a terrorist attack. Just like I would call the Oklahoma bombing a terrorist attack, or the attacks by the IRA, the ETA or the RAF in Europe. However, I think the term "terrorist" has been way overused recently.

0 Replies

Quote:

I think at the core of this discussion is the consideration that there are certain types of warfare which inflict an exceeding cruelty upon the enemy and which are therefore even more condemnable than others. Morally.

This is a very strange view of things. Sure it is ok for the elephant, who can merely crush his enemy in an instant, to say this. But what about the insect, who's only hope is to give enough pinpricks that the elephant might relent?

The US tends to operate under the assumption that their way is the only way, and american consumer culture is infiltrating all other cultures that are suceptible. Norwegian culture is becoming very americanized, for instance.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

This is a very strange view of things. Sure it is ok for the elephant, who can merely crush his enemy in an instant, to say this. But what about the insect, who's only hope is to give enough pinpricks that the elephant might relent?

The US tends to operate under the assumption that their way is the only way, and american consumer culture is infiltrating all other cultures that are suceptible. Norwegian culture is becoming very americanized, for instance.

Why is it a strange view of things? I agree that the line we draw is somewhat artificial, but why do you think it is strange to draw a line at all?

Do you think it is strange that we allow police officers to shoot at criminals, but don't allow them to torture criminals?

0 Replies

It is strange because we draw the line based on our capacity for "humane" warfare. The only reason we can condemn certain acts of war is that we ourselves are equipped to achieve what we want without them. If we had real need of them we would not be so condemning.

It is common sense that when an enemy has superior strength you don't face him on his terms, never head on unless you know you want to lose.
Do you think it is wrong not to defend your cause just because you do so against all odds?

And we do not allow the police to shoot at criminals. We allow them to shood at volatile targets, at threats against life and well being. A criminal isn't neccecarily any of those things.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

It is strange because we draw the line based on our capacity for "humane" warfare. The only reason we can condemn certain acts of war is that we ourselves are equipped to achieve what we want without them. If we had real need of them we would not be so condemning.

It is common sense that when an enemy has superior strength you don't face him on his terms, never head on unless you know you want to lose.
Do you think it is wrong not to defend your cause just because you do so against all odds?

And we do not allow the police to shoot at criminals. We allow them to shood at volatile targets, at threats against life and well being. A criminal isn't neccecarily any of those things.

War at anytime could be waged against soldiers or against citizens...
Of course, foraging armies in enemy territory automatically cause problems for the civilians...

0 Replies

This is directed at the last poster:

Why, whenever I see your name, do I misread it as "Name that Jew"?

I think I am in some kind of wacky game show.

0 Replies

najmelliw wrote:

Of course, foraging armies in enemy territory automatically cause problems for the civilians...

Armies cause problems for everyone. The only reason we have them is that they'll hopefully cause less problems than not having them.

gustav, yuor rieadng of this psoter's name is not so srnatge snice the first letter of it is 'n' and the last 'w'. We hnmuas don't read words, we see them as piutcres, where only the first and last letters create the meinang, so it isn't so strange.... Smile

0 Replies

Ah, I think we're talking past each other. Here's my question again:

old europe wrote:

Why is it a strange view of things? I agree that the line we draw is somewhat artificial, but why do you think it is strange to draw a line at all?

And you answered

Cyracuz wrote:

It is strange because we draw the line based on our capacity for "humane" warfare.

I get from that that you basically agree that it isn't such a strange thing to draw a line somewhere. It might just be strange where people choose to draw that line, though.

And there I absolutely agree. For example, some countries have the death penalty, and people think it's quite a normal thing. In other countries, not even the police carries guns on a regular basis, and people think it's quite a normal thing.

And the list goes on and on, when you want to consider the more extreme cases. Both the Japanese and Germans, in WWII, sent suicide bombers (well, by another name, but, yeah) to harm the enemy, and people thought it was an honor to die for the Emperor or the Führer. There are countries where blood feuds are still part of everyday life, and people think it's quite normal that if someone dishonors a member of your family, that you have the right to kill every member of the other family.

Cyracuz wrote:

The only reason we can condemn certain acts of war is that we ourselves are equipped to achieve what we want without them. If we had real need of them we would not be so condemning.

It is common sense that when an enemy has superior strength you don't face him on his terms, never head on unless you know you want to lose.
Do you think it is wrong not to defend your cause just because you do so against all odds?

Yeah, you might not be able to confront him head on. Yet people seem to make a distinction between "guerilla warfare" and "terrorism". And in the perception of the population, guerilla groups where often seen as freedom fighters. People idolized them, in spite of the violent means they used, and supported them. That seems to be quite different when it comes to "terrorist groups". I don't think that Zarquawi, for example, had many supporters amongst the Iraqi civilian population.

Another example I could point to would be the IRA in the early 1990s. At that time the group decided to use a tactic called the "proxy bomb". A victim was kidnapped and forced to drive a car bomb into a target. There was a notorious incident in Derry in 1990, where the IRA chained a Catholic civilian to a car packed with explosives, held his family hostage and forced him to drive the car into a checkpoint of the British Army. The bomb went off and killed the driver and five soldiers.

The outrage this caused even amongst the IRA supporters prompted the group to abandon the practice again.

So, bottom line: there seems to be a consensus that even when fighting from a position of relative weakness, there's a line you shouldn't cross, and means and methods you shouldn't employ.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

So, bottom line: there seems to be a consensus that even when fighting from a position of relative weakness, there's a line you shouldn't cross, and means and methods you shouldn't employ.

I think that is generally determined by what you're fighting for. If you're fighting for freedom from opression, fear of torture and death, applying those means in your struggle would naturally lessen the support you'd get, because you would be demonstrating that you are not a better alternative, just another bad one. There is an old saying:
Fighting for peace is like f***ing for virginity.

But there might be more to it. There probably is.

But I agree that you have a point concerning the difference between guerilja and terrorist. But what if the only difference is that a guerilja soldier is a terrorist with a just cause, and the other way around?

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

...But what if the only difference is that a guerilja soldier is a terrorist with a just cause, and the other way around?

You find this likely, do you? That firebombing a school bus is okay if done in defense of a just cause? Is this a sample of your personal ethics?

0 Replies

brandon wrote:

Is this a sample of your personal ethics?

Actually, it is. To the extent that it is ethical to challenge one's own understanding.

I am aware that political propaganda taints a lot of the information I recieve. The twists and variations of truth vary according to who is telling the tale, and sometimes I get the impression that people on the other side of the world get a completely different story.

But firebombing a schoolbus? There'd have to be a pretty strong reason to do so. But if some really evil person let a lethal virus with no cure lose inside it, it would be considered ethical to drown in in napalm before the virus got a chance to spread to the rest of the population, if that was what it would take.

But I hope no one is insane enough to actually put anyone in a position where they'd have to make that choice.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

http://youtu.be/KiKyWJRRjnU

0 Replies

we say terrorists kill innocent people...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know