I'd say anyone who chooses to kill a civilian, whether based on an order or not, is a war criminal. I really don't care if they thought they were there for a noble cause or not.
What if they choose to kill a person who was a civilian until they were drafted into the enemy army the day before?
What if the civilian they kill has a substantial effect on the enemy's military capabilities, for example by being someone famous who loudly endorses the honour of signing up to fight for one's country, thereby motivating thousands of young men to do just that?
The author of that page appears to be a Holocaust denier[1]. Not exactly the example I would put forwards, especially if I want to make an unannealed appeal against Israeli war crimes.
[1]: A search for that name mostly brings up links to pages for SS apologia.
Yes: the content is very different from what I remembered it as from back when I first visited it after Aaron died, I don't know how the website went where it went, and I'm sorry I didn't check prior to posting.
"War crimes" is something of a shorthand for being involved in an aggressive war; they are a surprisingly minor influence on the discourse because they are small in comparison to the decision to go to war at all.
I think the more baby-steps approach to western cognitive dissonance is to at least get them to be consistent about when it is a good idea to go to war. I'm more than happy to get downvoted pointing out that killing 100s of thousands of Russians and welding them strategically to China was a terrible policy, uniting Asian manufacturing and resource giants is catastrophic for western power. But people were grumpy and didn't want to talk about realpolitik because the Russians are so evil.
Now we have the US attacking Persians in Persia for trying to govern Persia because the US sphere of influence covers the whole world and doing serious damage to the West's access to global oil markets and we have this muted and philosophical response from the powers that be. It isn't just immoral, it is also actively stupid - if we can tolerate this behaviour from the US, why can't we also tolerate Russia on a far smaller and easier to understand scale? How are all the sanctions and weapons deliveries to Ukraine actually justified in the minds of the people making the decisions? It clearly isn't a moral calculation and it seems to be stupid strategy.
If we got some thoughtful and transparent thinkers in power there'd probably just be less wars, they seem to be the fast path to poverty and the upside is hard to spot. There are serious questions about why any of the major conflicts right now looked like a good idea to the people in Washington and wherever NATO is in Europe. Brussels I suppose. Can we try peace and prosperity as a strategy?
The South Korean government was a military dictatorship at the time. And the North was wealthier. Without the power of foresight, you couldn't justify the war as bringing democracy or economic prosperity, it was purely a geopolitical struggle. It took a lot of historical revisionism to erase that inconvenient little fact from western consciousness.
I admire Aaron Bushnell, but that page unironically uses phrases like "Satanic Talmudic supremacy"
Thanks, updated link below: seems to have been changed since last time I saw it back when it all happened, sorry!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Bushnell
Looks like a clever little psyop to discredit him.
its a quote of a person, so the usage is justified
It's a good phrase
Were all US soldiers in the Revolutionary War war criminals? What about the North in the Civil War? Or WWI/WWII?
Nearly every soldier in any war will have directly or indirectly killed an innocent civilian. Which ones are war crimes and which aren’t?
How do you decide and who gives you the authority to do so?
I'd say anyone who chooses to kill a civilian, whether based on an order or not, is a war criminal. I really don't care if they thought they were there for a noble cause or not.
What if they choose to kill a person who was a civilian until they were drafted into the enemy army the day before?
What if the civilian they kill has a substantial effect on the enemy's military capabilities, for example by being someone famous who loudly endorses the honour of signing up to fight for one's country, thereby motivating thousands of young men to do just that?
1 reply →
What does indirectly killed mean?
Sounds like a weird way to phrase collateral damage?
4 replies →
Who gives US president authority to just murder whoever he wants?
Nobody. He just seized it. No one gave it to him; hence their upset that people like duterte are being kept in the Hague.
US voters
1 reply →
Correct. Either all soldiers are war criminals or none of them are. The world is black or white, without nuance.
The author of that page appears to be a Holocaust denier[1]. Not exactly the example I would put forwards, especially if I want to make an unannealed appeal against Israeli war crimes.
[1]: A search for that name mostly brings up links to pages for SS apologia.
Yes: the content is very different from what I remembered it as from back when I first visited it after Aaron died, I don't know how the website went where it went, and I'm sorry I didn't check prior to posting.
Updated link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Bushnell
>someone defending their country
Can be used to justify anything.
Hey is friendly fire a war crime?
"War crimes" is something of a shorthand for being involved in an aggressive war; they are a surprisingly minor influence on the discourse because they are small in comparison to the decision to go to war at all.
I think the more baby-steps approach to western cognitive dissonance is to at least get them to be consistent about when it is a good idea to go to war. I'm more than happy to get downvoted pointing out that killing 100s of thousands of Russians and welding them strategically to China was a terrible policy, uniting Asian manufacturing and resource giants is catastrophic for western power. But people were grumpy and didn't want to talk about realpolitik because the Russians are so evil.
Now we have the US attacking Persians in Persia for trying to govern Persia because the US sphere of influence covers the whole world and doing serious damage to the West's access to global oil markets and we have this muted and philosophical response from the powers that be. It isn't just immoral, it is also actively stupid - if we can tolerate this behaviour from the US, why can't we also tolerate Russia on a far smaller and easier to understand scale? How are all the sanctions and weapons deliveries to Ukraine actually justified in the minds of the people making the decisions? It clearly isn't a moral calculation and it seems to be stupid strategy.
If we got some thoughtful and transparent thinkers in power there'd probably just be less wars, they seem to be the fast path to poverty and the upside is hard to spot. There are serious questions about why any of the major conflicts right now looked like a good idea to the people in Washington and wherever NATO is in Europe. Brussels I suppose. Can we try peace and prosperity as a strategy?
[dead]
[flagged]
The US hasn't fought a just war since WW2 and even that is actually somewhat questionable
The citizens of South Korea might have some thoughts on that.
The South Korean government was a military dictatorship at the time. And the North was wealthier. Without the power of foresight, you couldn't justify the war as bringing democracy or economic prosperity, it was purely a geopolitical struggle. It took a lot of historical revisionism to erase that inconvenient little fact from western consciousness.
1 reply →