Do you know Kratz?Lol, I'm just trollin'.
Didn't catch too many fish though... Need better bait I guess.
How about this, killing innocents is ok as long as they're (fill in the blank to maximize your own outrage, thanx!)? Does that work for you?
Maybe in modern times. When was this law established? After WWII? Are you saying that China, Russia or the USA have ruled out retaliating against civilians if their own civilian populations are attacked in a pre-emptive strike on a large scale basis?There is absolutely an error in logic, GPIDEAL. It is a well established principle of international humanitarian law that you cannot punish the civilian population of a country for the actions of its government. It's called collective punishment, and it's illegal. You punish those individuals in government who are responsible for atrocity, not everyone else. The problem is when you use phrases like "the aggressor's cities" as if all the people in those cities are the aggressors.
You need your head examined. Those are two completely different scenarios. You are confusing a terrorist organization that does not represent any nation or government that conducted a pre-emptive surgical strike on a civilian population without any provocation. The atomic bombings were conducted in lieu of a mainland invasion after the U.S. fought tooth and nail through Japanese-occupied island terriroties. Two nations at war.That was Al Qaeda's justification for 9/11. It's no justification for atrocity. You cannot argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid because they turned the civilian population against the government, but then turn around and argue that 9/11 was somehow wrong, even though it was carried out with the exact same motivation. They were both wrong, for the exact same reason.
When practical or feasible to do, and militarily productive, yes. But what do you think the Chinese or Russian people would want their government to do if Hong Kong, Shanghai, Bejiing, Moscow, Leningrad, or what have you were wiped out by U.S. ICBMs?Absolutely it is acceptable to attack a military HQ, and when that military HQ is in a major urban center there is likely no way to attack it without inflicting perhaps severe civilian casualties. If the civilian casualties are unavoidable and the target is the military HQ then there is no crime in the attack. It is when the civilians THEMSELVES become the target that it becomes a war crime. Intentionality matters. Plainly if there were an effective way to attack the military HQ *without* inflicting the civilian casualties then that's what you should do--but convention recognizes and accepts that it isn't always possible.
Germany WAS considered the enemy at the time. Don't equate it to Libya. Germany was a Super-Power at the time.The plain problem with this is that you are punishing the German civilians, rather than the enemy. You are, once again, promoting illegal collective punishment against a civilian population rather than going after the actual enemy, which is the government and military regime. It is clear in humanitarian law that the population of a country is not the enemy, even when the government is.
Of course it isn't because unlike yourself, reasonably people know that a terrorist organization or group does not represent a nation or government. As far as Nazi evil, the Allies didn't have death camps like the Nazis did. Even if they attacked civilians, those attacks are far and few between. Nothing can compare to the Battle of Britain, or the blitzkrieg against Poland, or the invasion of Denmark, or the Soviet Union.This is terrorist ideation and it is morally bankrupt and wrong. It is not OK for us to go and carry out terrorist attacks against Arab cities. It was not moral for us to respond to Nazi evil by committing equally evil acts against innocent German civilians.
You're confusing war with morality. Sometimes if not usually, the two are not compatible.Again, you are confusing technology with morality. You are correct that in the past it was only possible to carry out attacks on, say a military HQ, in a way that inflicted larger casualties than today. In the future it will be possible to do it with even fewer casualties than today. But yesterday, today, and tomorrow the principle is the same--if you have several effective ways to attack a target, you must choose the method that results in the least civilian casualties. What that method is will change with technology, but the principle does not change.
As a result when we look at WW2 strategic bombings we need to look at them case by case. Some of those bombings were the ONLY effective way to attack some legitimate targets, like weapons factories. Other times, such as at Dresden or Hamburg, the evidence is that there was no military target of significant value that was being attacked, that the military "targets" were put up as an excuse, and that the real intent was to annihilate the civilian populations. Thus in some cases the attacks are legitimate, while in other cases they are criminal.
Again, intentionality matters, and mattered just as much in WW2 bombings of Germany, as in modern Israeli bombings of Gaza. If Israel strikes a target there with the intention of taking out a rocket launcher, and that strike is the only effective way to take out that launcher, so be it. On the other hand were Israel to carry out the exact same strike, but with no launcher present, intent on taking out a civilian building--well that would be a war crime.
If the USA gained air superiority over Japan, there would've been more killed from phosphorus bombings than both atomic bombs (as was the case - watch The Fog of War) until they cried surrender. The atomic bombings avoided more annihilation of the masses. Why should the USA wait for a surrender through the Soviets, their temporary ally only at the time?That is often claimed, but it is not in evidence. There are two problems:
1. The Japanese WERE willing to surrender in any case. They were seeking surrender terms through the Soviets. The only question was whether it would be an unconditional surrender or not. The question is then this: Is the genocidal annihilation of a civilian population justified merely to accomplish better terms of surrender?
2. It's far more likely that they surrendered because the Soviets entered the war and routed their army in Manchuria. This happened between the two bomb drops. With their asian positions crumbling they (a) had very little to negotiate for, beyond an unconditional surrender, and (b) the allies would gain air bases in china neighbouring Japan and gain air superiority over the Japanese homeland, drastically altering the logic of an invasion (making it much easier).
So in short I don't believe it is factually correct that the bomb forced surrender, and secondly even if it did, I question whether even still it actually justifies genocide.
AQ or 9/11 is no analogy for two sovereign nations that have declared war against each other. Get that out of your head!Again, that is the logic Al Qaeda applied in attacking on 9/11, their idea was to turn the American population against the American government through acts of terror. That is what you are advocating here. It is morally bankrupt and wrong. You are no better than an Al Qaeda supporter if that is your view--just on the other side of the fight.
The Japanese were seeking terms that would allow them to retain some of their holdings, but the Allies wanted an unconditional surrender. Is that grounds for genocide?I would dispute your factual contention that a) the Japanese were in the process of surrendering and b) Dresden targeted civilians.
I should also add I dispute your assertion that the atomic bomb use against Japan constitutes genocide.
The law was used to prosecute the Nazis for war crimes. Think about it.Maybe in modern times. When was this law established? After WWII?
China, Russia, and the USA have not declared what they target with their weapons, but it remains a well established principle of international humanitarian law that collective punishment of civilians is illegal.Are you saying that China, Russia or the USA have ruled out retaliating against civilians if their own civilian populations are attacked in a pre-emptive strike on a large scale basis?
Are you saying that the 9/11 attacks would have been acceptable had they been sponsored by Iran or the Taliban? Al Qaeda claims to be fighting for the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate, and has specific grievances with the United States and other Western countries. I don't agree with their politics nor do I feel their grievances are legitimate. That said, whether a method of fighting is legal, or illegal, ought to depend only on the method. Not on the rightness of the cause.You need your head examined. Those are two completely different scenarios. You are confusing a terrorist organization that does not represent any nation or government that conducted a pre-emptive surgical strike on a civilian population without any provocation.
The justification you are giving is that the civilian population of Japan would be terrorized into persuading its government to capitulate. Ditto Al Qaeda's view of its attacks on the United States. Either attacking and terrorizing civilian populations is wrong, or it's not wrong. If it's wrong it's wrong for everybody, not just for the other side.The atomic bombings were conducted in lieu of a mainland invasion after the U.S. fought tooth and nail through Japanese-occupied island terriroties.
At the time of the Dresden and Hamburg firebombings Germany was a broken power whose defeat was inevitable. Moreover, are you saying that it is OK to carry out terror attacks only if the victim is a superpower? So again, you would line up nicely with Osama bin Laden's view on the subject. Or Mullah Omar perhaps. You seem to think terrorist attacks against civilians are OK so long as you believe you are fighting on the right side, and the victim is a superpower.Germany WAS considered the enemy at the time. Don't equate it to Libya. Germany was a Super-Power at the time.
I absolutely agree that the Allies carried out fewer atrocities and war crimes than the Nazis did. Far fewer. But a war crime is a war crime, don't you think? Just because you've murdered fewer people than John Gacy does not mean we let you walk away scott free.Even if they attacked civilians, those attacks are far and few between.
I'm pointing out a clear bright line: Attacks on civilians are wrong, evil, and illegal. They are to be opposed by right thinking people, and prosecuted.You're confusing war with morality. Sometimes if not usually, the two are not compatible.
We have gone through this before. There were some prosecutions for crimes that everyone including those who committed them knew were crimes (and a lot who walked).The law was used to prosecute the Nazis for war crimes.
So what you are saying is let us drag the war out, and have far more troops on all sides killed etc. . . .At the time of the Dresden and Hamburg firebombings Germany was a broken power whose defeat was inevitable.
But doesn't that leave you with the opposite problem? If the method is all that matters, then the Allied forces storming the beaches of Normandy are no different from the Germans rolling into Poland. Doesn't the "rightness" inevitably come in to play, even if it can't be quantified in absolute terms?That said, whether a method of fighting is legal, or illegal, ought to depend only on the method. Not on the rightness of the cause.
Otherwise we'll wind up in a world where everybody believes they can commit genocide and atrocity just so long as it's for a good cause!!!
I think YOU should think about it. If that's true, it makes sense to prosecute those who attack civilians without provocation, but not to prosecute those who respond in kind.The law was used to prosecute the Nazis for war crimes. Think about it.
Yes, and when incoming bombers come in to pre-emptively attack a civilian target, what should we do? Wave that legal document at that them?China, Russia, and the USA have not declared what they target with their weapons, but it remains a well established principle of international humanitarian law that collective punishment of civilians is illegal.
If you have to ask, then you don't understand the concept or distinction. If it was Iran, maybe a similar response in kind if not like that for Iraq. If it was the Taliban, much like what has been happening. Besides, legal methods of fighting don't involve hijacking passenger jets and crashing them into tall civilian buildings. Why should the victims stick with the rules?Are you saying that the 9/11 attacks would have been acceptable had they been sponsored by Iran or the Taliban? Al Qaeda claims to be fighting for the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate, and has specific grievances with the United States and other Western countries. I don't agree with their politics nor do I feel their grievances are legitimate. That said, whether a method of fighting is legal, or illegal, ought to depend only on the method. Not on the rightness of the cause.
Responding to an aggressor that threatens to destroy a nation has nothing to do with any cause - it is just survival. It may take extreme measures to stop them.Otherwise we'll wind up in a world where everybody believes they can commit genocide and atrocity just so long as it's for a good cause!!!
The people of the offending nation voted for or acquiesced to, their government who are in charge. An act of war has been declared between two countries and until they surrender, the defending nation shall continue military action until they do so. This is the only way to eliminate the threat and keep the peace. How hard is it for you to understand this concept of war?The justification you are giving is that the civilian population of Japan would be terrorized into persuading its government to capitulate. Ditto Al Qaeda's view of its attacks on the United States. Either attacking and terrorizing civilian populations is wrong, or it's not wrong. If it's wrong it's wrong for everybody, not just for the other side.
You have difficulty in distinguishing two super-power nations engaged in war, and a terrorist organization with it's own agenda (which you already admitted is illegitimate) launching attacks on civilians without provocation. In WWII, until Germany surrendered, the defending or allied nations, couldn't be sure that their security wouldn't be threatened again. Nazi Germany was in the last stages trying to build an atomic bomb as well as jet fighters, which could've turned the tide of war. Don't you understand the relevance or importance of surrendering in war? Aggressors don't volunteer to surrender out of the goodness of their heart. Only when they are forced to do so.At the time of the Dresden and Hamburg firebombings Germany was a broken power whose defeat was inevitable. Moreover, are you saying that it is OK to carry out terror attacks only if the victim is a superpower? So again, you would line up nicely with Osama bin Laden's view on the subject. Or Mullah Omar perhaps. You seem to think terrorist attacks against civilians are OK so long as you believe you are fighting on the right side, and the victim is a superpower.
Shit happens in war. War is complex. Sometimes civilians are killed and perhaps even targeted as a measured or proportionate response. Hitler bombs London, Churchill responds in kind by bombing Berlin. Churchill would not have done so if it wasn't for Hitler's illegal act. If you were talking about two armed robbers, then yeah, one doesn't walk away scott free because he shot fewer victims to death.I absolutely agree that the Allies carried out fewer atrocities and war crimes than the Nazis did. Far fewer. But a war crime is a war crime, don't you think? Just because you've murdered fewer people than John Gacy does not mean we let you walk away scott free. I'm pointing out a clear bright line: Attacks on civilians are wrong, evil, and illegal. They are to be opposed by right thinking people, and prosecuted.
That is not what the word genocide means. There are many other words that can be used to describe the killing to a large civilian population, you simply chose not to use the proper words in an attempt to make an emotional appeal based on a number of misleading points.The Japanese were seeking terms that would allow them to retain some of their holdings, but the Allies wanted an unconditional surrender. Is that grounds for genocide?
In Dresden significant military installations were NOT targetted, while minor ones were, the difference between proximity to civilians. Meanwhile the allied commander outright said one of the purposes was to influence German "morale".
The annihilation of a civilian population is genocide. There is no other word.
Perry is going to be hounded by this especially after the Cameron Willingham case where he's been accused on interference in the reinvestigation of the case by others. The original case was found to have giant holes in and done poorly and when the reinvestigation was uncovering problems he put pressure to shut it downI see that I'm in good company. Here's a headline from the Huffpo: "SLEEPING LIKE A BABY
Rick Perry: 'I've Never Struggled' With Risk Of Executing Innocent Person." See, it's a piece of cake killing the innocents.
More here if you care to read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/07/rick-perry-death-penalty-gop-debate_n_953214.html
I know you don't like the precedent. I know you generally don't like the idea of humanitarian law. So let me ask you a question:Then there were prosecutions such as the Nuremberg Trials which a lot of legal, political and military scholars have said from the get go, set a very unfortunate precedent and which should have been conducted differently.
I'm saying that the intentional targeting of civilians is always wrong. That option is a criminal option, and anyone who chooses it should be jailed. Period.So what you are saying is let us drag the war out, and have far more troops on all sides killed etc. . . .
Neither the Allies storming the beaches of Normandy, nor the Germans rolling into Poland, were war crimes. Whether those wars were justified is another matter. But in any case, both of those were military versus military operations, and while war sucks, and should be avoided, it isn't a war crime just to have a war.But doesn't that leave you with the opposite problem? If the method is all that matters, then the Allied forces storming the beaches of Normandy are no different from the Germans rolling into Poland. Doesn't the "rightness" inevitably come in to play, even if it can't be quantified in absolute terms?
The intentional annihilation of a national group, in whole or in part, is genocide. Wiping out entire cities clearly qualifies as "in part". It is exactly genocide.That is not what the word genocide means.
I didn't say they were. I said they were a broken power, in full retreat. I simply contradicted the wrong claim that at that point in time they were a "super power". I also question whether that is relevant: A war crime does not because legal just because either the aggressor or the victim is a "super power".If you look at what happened even after the first bomb was dropped you will know that they were not in the process of surrendering.
As usual you have confused yourself with irrelevancies. The concept you're referring to simply recognizes that you may have to take more extreme measures to attack a defended city, but it does NOTHING to change the principle. Intentionality still matters. If you attack a defended city, and you use more broadly lethal means to do so, your INTENTION in attacking the city is still crucial to whether or not it is criminal.Assuming you know the first thing about the LOAC you know that there is a qualitative difference between a defended city and an undefended city, and the WWII attacks were against defended cities and 9/11 was against an undefended city.
On the contrary, it was well known to the military generals on both sides of the war by then, as documented by their communications. The open question was what terms Germany would eventually surrender other, and the question of whether Hitler was sane enough to agree to a surrender under any terms (he never did).The argument that Germany was a broken power when Dresden took place and its defeat was inevitable is one that can only be made with historic hindsight
And yet it stands as a precedent. You just don't like it. You often decide that you don't like facts that disagree with you, but that is just too bad for you. The overwhelming majority of people, if you ask them, view Nuremberg as a triumph of justice.Lastly you again make the feeble Nuremberg argument, when it has already been pointed out to out that the fact the laws were created after the acts in question is one of the great weaknesses of the Nuremberg process
