Attack on Subchaser 39

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

No I am not saying that. In a bitt sarcastic way I wanted to show that "they can fight later" is not an excuse for shooting defenceless men. It is still war crime.

The sadest thing is that only one side of war was punished for their crimes.

Killing of children and women could also justify this way. Children can grow up and fight so its better to kill all children’s of enemy before that happens and women of enemy can birth new children that can be used as replacements fighters so it’s better to kill them also alongside killing defenceless enemies. It’s always better to kill the enemy when it is still defenceless.

[spence]

The "Laws of War" are a non-sequitur.
 
As most Carthaginians would agree, the most important one is "Don't Lose".

[Terminus]

Should we at least not pretend to have come a bit further on the civilization scale than the Carthagenians, who sacrificed their own children to the gods?

[spence]

Should we at least not pretend to have come a bit further on the civilization scale than the Carthagenians, who sacrificed their own children to the gods?

 
Which civilization?  What exactly is that?
 
Actually I was referring to the Romans.  They are the ones who razed the city (Cathage), put all the men to death, sold the women and children into slavery, and then plowed salt into the earth to prevent anything from ever growing there again.
 
Laws of PHYSICS may be immutable and universal (then again, there is that weird Quantum Physics stuff).  Laws of MAN certainly are not.  Laws of GOD (as presented by MAN) have throughout history justified virtually anything.
 
The winners of a war, for practical purposes, are able to define the conditions under which their former enemy continues to exist.  In the case of Carthage, the Romans defined that said former enemy would not exist at all.
 
Cynical perhaps, but I frankly think that the only "Law of War" that has any lasting relevance is "DON'T LOSE".   

[Jakerson]

Fact is that crueler you are more opposition and resistance you meet in the end up to the point where almost everyone wants to resist you as most of the people start to see those who resist you lesser pain than you.

Criminology accepts that by traumatizing enemy by experiences of unjust more violent, unpredictable and more dangerous your enemy generally comes.

In this era where information flows at speed of light you can’t hide your acts of unjust in the way you could in the roman era. So if you commit acts of total cruelty whole world will know causing massive and fast traumatizing experiences of unjust almost growing violent, unpredictable and more dangerous enemies at speed of light.

So taking civilization experiences 2000 years from past don’t apply this modern era anymore.

[Micah Goodman]

I have mixed feelings about trying to regulate “laws” for warfare. I think that on one hand they are a necessity, but on the other hand I think that they unduly endanger your own troops. For example, Admiral Donitz strictly ordered his U-Boat crews not to make an attempt to rescue survivors of sunken enemy ships after a U-Boat rescued the crew of a merchant ship they sunk off the coast of Africa in 1941, I believe. Donitz was concerned that by doing this placed too great a risk on the U-Boats. The Allies used this order to charge Donitz with a war crime at Nuremburg. There are of course numerous other cases during WW II that I could mention but won’t. The other side of this issue involves the cases when an enemy showed mercy or compassion that have received little notice in this discussion.

For example, during the battle of Leyte Gulf, when the Japanese cruiser Tone sank the USS Gambier Bay with direct gun fire, the commanding officer order his gun control officer to target parts of the ship where crew men could NOT be seen trying to get off the stricken ship. There are other cases as well.

The lines of “acceptable” conduct become very murky when you deal with guerilla wars like Iraq. When one side observes no limits in regards to war how can the other side reasonably be expected to observe the rules of warfare? A US Marine Colonel investigating the shooting deaths of Iraqi’s has recommended that the four US Marines involved face the death penalty. Not knowing the intimate details involved in the case I can’t say if the Colonel’s recommendations are justified or not. I do know this if we weren’t trying to fight this war on TV the situation in Iraq would be a whole better. And expecting Marines or soldiers to act like cops wouldn’t even be an issue.

To consider the airmen in the above picture criminals for attempting to kill the enemy during the course of a war is ridiculous. To expect them to fly past the ship and drop a “Get the Hell of the Ship, before we sink it!” is patently ridiculous. The ship WAS armed and capable of killing allied service members. End of story.

[spence]

So taking civilization experiences 2000 years from past don’t apply this modern era anymore. 
 

Oh come now; we could kill every man, woman and child in Iraq today and if Michael Jackson has a boy over to Neverland tonite the whole thing will be forgotten by tomorrow morning, thanks to the information flow at the speed of light.

[Jakerson]

Oh come now; we could kill every man, woman and child in Iraq today and if Michael Jackson has a boy over to Neverland tonite the whole thing will be forgotten by tomorrow morning, thanks to the information flow at the speed of light.

And same time by doing so USA loses most of alliances around the Middle East and Europe if you think its worth of that price then goes ahead and eradicates and exterminate everybody in Iraq. Nobody will think you as a winner after that its 100% sure.

Even G. W. Bush is not that stupid we never see policy of killing everyone in Iraq. Bush knows that hiding total extermination of millions is impossible without first introducing total fascism in the USA and the world under name of anti-fascism.

[spence]

Lighten up Jake. The comment was preposterous and specifically exaggerated in order to make light of the priorities accorded to events by new media who's principle focus is on making "the news" into entertainment.