Is This a War Crime?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by MRPLUTO
How about some modern examples:

In Israel, a Palestinian suicide bomber blows himself up along with Israeli soldiers and civilians on a bus.  Certainly the soldiers are legitimate targets; the bus and civilians on board are not.

In Gaza, an Israeli jet drops a 2,000 lb. bomb on an apartment building, killing about a dozen people.  One of them is a terrorist leader, certainly a legitimate target.  The others who died, mostly children, just happened to live in the same building.  They were not legitimate targets.

I see no moral difference in these two incidents, both of which I would call war crimes.

It seems you should sue your parents for failing to give you a proper upbringing.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by MRPLUTO
In World War 2 a pair of light bombers attack an enemy transport ship, causing heavy damage.  

When the crew takes to life boats, the bombers strafe them.

Was it a war crime to strafe the crew in the life boats?

MRPLUTO

Doesn't sound like a war crime to me... they are after all, combatants, regardless of the current situation.

This is a war crime.

[capt. apathy]

In Israel, a Palestinian suicide bomber blows himself up along with Israeli soldiers and civilians on a bus. Certainly the soldiers are legitimate targets; the bus and civilians on board are not.

In Gaza, an Israeli jet drops a 2,000 lb. bomb on an apartment building, killing about a dozen people. One of them is a terrorist leader, certainly a legitimate target. The others who died, mostly children, just happened to live in the same building. They were not legitimate targets.

I see no moral difference in these two incidents, both of which I would call war crimes.

in the cases you mention and call war-crimes I'd call colateral damage.

if a target chooses to seround themselves with civilians the blame is theirs.

if I went into battle carying a child with me as a shield, who would be the criminal, me or the man who shot at me and killed the child?

war is a messy business, and isolating your damage is rarely possable.  those in combat face many hard choices all day every day, and they don't have the luxery of only doing things they are comfortable with or that make them feel good.  I know I don't feel real comfortable sitting safely at home second guessing their actions.

my general rule of thumb on deciding if an act is a war-crime is this-  if you have any doubt that it was a crime it probably wasn't.

[straffo]

Cpt Apathy let represent this another way :

A terrorist blow in a bus killing your childrens.

=> not good

A pilot drop a 2000lbs bomb killing your childrens.

=> good Afterall it's only a collateral domage...

Do you see my point ?

[capt. apathy]

a soldier kills my son in combat.

I'm still pissed.  


whats your point?  that it's bad when people die?  I think we all get that.  or is it that people die in war?  I think we understand that too.

I would say that intentionally targeting civilians, with no strategic advantage (are they scientists developing weapons, or if they are manufacturing weapons) other than to terrorise the enemy is a war-crime.  killing pow's is a war-crime.  

inocents being killed in war is a terrible thing but it doesn't make the soldier a criminal.  many soldiers are drafted and do not engage in war by choice.  since they are therefore 'inocent' does that make it a crime to aim for those soldiers?  how do you seperate them from the rest (do interviews before battle? ).

it's all very complicated, a lot of grey areas.  it's war,  the confusion and horror are the nature of the beast.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Hortlund
It seems you should sue your parents for failing to give you a proper upbringing.

Wow, great rebuttal!
You sure showed him that he is wrong, and you convinced us all of your excellent point.


AD HOM

[MRPLUTO]

"Collateral" is defined in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.) as: secondary or indirect

In the two examples above, the civilian casualties were part of the target; the planners knew the civilians on the bus or in the apartment building would be killed if the attack went as planned.

So what is collateral damage?

When RAF Mossies made a low-level attack on a Gestapo HQ and prison in Holland the plan was to destroy the prison's walls and HQ building.  Some bombs unfortunately hit the prison and killed prisoners.  Many more, however, escaped certain death at the hands of the Gestapo.  More tragically, other bombs hit a school and hospital, causing civilian casualties.  It wasn't a given that this would happen, but as you say: war is messy.

But do we want to say it's okay to target civilians along with legitimate targets?  I mean, wasn't there an office of the CIA and/or FBI in the World Trade Center?  Even if there was, it would never justify destroying the WTC with civilian airliners, by just calling those deaths "collateral damage".

*******

And, if these questions aren't difficult enough, then there's the case of the Flying Tigers' attack on the Japanese at the Salween Gorge, which resulted in large civilian casualties along with a decisive Japanese defeat.  Chennault got Chiang Kai-shek's permission to make the attack on the Japanese column, which was intermingled with fleeing civilians on a narrow mountain road and bridge.


MRPLUTO

[straffo]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
it's all very complicated, a lot of grey areas.  it's war,  the confusion and horror are the nature of the beast.

I do agree.
It's late for me (about 12 Pm) I'll contribute perhaps more tomorow.

[wulfie]

Originally posted by MRPLUTO
In World War 2 a pair of light bombers attack an enemy transport ship, causing heavy damage.  

When the crew takes to life boats, the bombers strafe them.

Was it a war crime to strafe the crew in the life boats?

If so, what should be the punishment?

MRPLUTO

It isn't a war crime. What made you think it could have been? I think too many people are too quick to equate 'war crime' with 'things they don't think are nice'. Welcome to warfare.

Mike/wulfie

[Godzilla]

It's not a war crime if your side wins the war.

[wulfie]

Originally posted by straffo
Cpt Apathy let represent this another way :

A terrorist blow in a bus killing your childrens.

=> not good

A pilot drop a 2000lbs bomb killing your childrens.

=> good Afterall it's only a collateral domage...

Do you see my point ?

Intent matters. It doesn't make civilians getting killed when a military target is hit 'okay' or something to be 'taken lightly' but you cannot assign moral equivalency in these cases.

German women and children being killed by 'strategic bombing' was a horrific thing especially due to the fact that the theories behind the strategic bombing campaign (i.e. the civilian populace of Germany would become dispirited and this would destabilize the Nazi regime, affect civilian industrial support of the German war machine, etc.) were for the most part severely flawed. But following the line of reasoning you just used, there's no real difference between a concentration camp guard who herds women to an execution area and a U.S.A.A.F. bomber crewman involved with the daylight bombing campaign over Germany.

There's a huge difference between commiting actions that could result in innocents being killed and commiting actions with the sole purpose of causing innocents to be killed.

Mike/wulfie

[wulfie]

Originally posted by Godzilla
It's not a war crime if your side wins the war.

What he (MRPLUTO) described isn't a war crime no matter which side wins the war. If you're a sailor on a merchant vessel supporting the war effort during a time of open warfare you are fair game. If a destroyer had caught the same merchant ships all alone, and the ships had 'surrendered', and the destroyer had the ability to accept the surrender at no risk to itself or its assigned mission - then you'd be getting into 'war crime' territory.

There were certainly combatants involved in every theater and on every side that displayed 'chivalry' that was 'above and beyond' what was required to avoid 'commiting war crimes'. A lack of chivalry is not the same as being a war criminal.

Mike/wulfie

[wulfie]

Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
Technically yes it would be.  Unles the folsk in the rafts where firing apon the bombers.

It's an enemy transport ship. The guys in the boat are members of the ships crew of an enemy in time of war. They were/are fair game.

Also, this example is small potatoes. It's like asking about the morality of the hand job scene at the beginning of a Ron Jeremy triple feature. Read up on the Battle of the Bismark Sea if you want to read about guys getting strafed in the water. Conservative estimates put the Japanese loss of life at 5,000+ - all guys who began the day riding on or crewing transports, warships, etc.

Mike/wulfie

[Godzilla]

What I meant is that if you are not on the winning side, anything can be a war crime.

The Japanese would have executed any Amercian captured  after this. It's all relative.

[rabbidrabbit]

Originally posted by wulfie
It's an enemy transport ship. The guys in the boat are members of the ships crew of an enemy in time of war. They were/are fair game.

Also, this example is small potatoes. It's like asking about the morality of the hand job scene at the beginning of a Ron Jeremy triple feature. Read up on the Battle of the Bismark Sea if you want to read about guys getting strafed in the water. Conservative estimates put the Japanese loss of life at 5,000+ - all guys who began the day riding on or crewing transports, warships, etc.

Mike/wulfie

It's a grey area, Technically, if your opponent is not longer  a combatant then you don't have the right to attack them.  If you have compelling reason to believe they are still combatants then it's a creditable decision.  Whether you kill one person or 1000 the rules of combat still apply.