War Crimes?

@esmeralda wrote:

@pete wrote:

Of course theres rules more so now than ever cause we need to be seen as not barbaric and there are limits to how far we SHOULD go to win

I’m minded of Spike Milligan’s remarks regarding the IRA, back in the seventies, when the British Government and media condemned the bombings and atrocities, and he argued that the IRA were at war with the Brits and therefore everyone and everything deemed ‘the enemy’ by the IRA militia, was fair game.
I agree with chickenman, no Queensbury rules. As a pacifist I simply find the hypocrisy of arguing the concept of decent and respectful warfare, too ludicrous for words. So I shall shut up now! :twisted:

That my point, you cant have a nice war. Im against using troops in political wars. They should be there just to defende us from attack.

Oh Alf Garnett made me laugh in one episode. He was having an argument with a bloke in the pub about the IRA. He said if they want a war we will give em one, they should take their balaclavas off and stand up and fight proper :lol:

No don’t shut up Esme :)

I wonder how long there has been a code of conduct in war? I know during the war with the French in the early 1800s, prisoners that were officers were treated well, but that was because officers on both sides were usually titled and had bought their positions with hard cash. I think the rank and file soldiers were not treated so well.

The Geneva Convention applies to non-combatants and prisoners of war.

In the Great War and WW2 the loss of life of combatants was horrendous, but what people react strongly too is the mass murder of civilians.

The same was true in Bosnia, where whole villages were slaughtered in ethnic cleansing.

However, if a scud missile lands in a town and kills thousands of civilians it is not looked at in the same way!

There seems no sense to it really.

In Iraq the british and americans have use “hi impact” weapons that have been banned by most countries but because we use them and make the rules for that conflict it’s ok but if nerve gas was used against us we would be screaming its against some convention somewhere.

@pete wrote:

So if you want to win a war by chopping childrens heads off no one can complain because it’s war so you can do whatever you want

…. or more conventionally, by killing the other side’s combatants. Generally speaking, decapitating children isn’t a good military strategy, mainly because they usually don’t shoot at you and try to kill you.

@forumhostpb wrote:

@pete wrote:

So if you want to win a war by chopping childrens heads off no one can complain because it’s war so you can do whatever you want

…. or more conventionally, by killing the other side’s combatants. Generally speaking, decapitating children isn’t a good military strategy, mainly because they usually don’t shoot at you and try to kill you.