The idea of a "war crime" is a joke

geg'd :D

>humanly butcher animals

War crimes are how the victors justify raping the corpse of their enemies.

It depends on the kind of war you are fighting, the kind of enemy you are fighting against and what the stakes are.

This picture is cool where is it from

I really see no reason to show restraint in war. Then again I'm the kinda guy who would kill every single last one of my enemies people just so I wouldn't have to hear their whining in the future. You can always recolonize the area with your own people anyways.

Otto Dix

Attached: index.jpg (272x185, 11K)

I would say that is different.

For killing an animal, the main purpose is that the animal dies, so that I can eat.

In war, the goal isn't just to kill the enemy, but to stop the enemy from fighting entirely.

And this isn't an argument in favor of war. If war is truly a last resort (as it should be), then why would there be a single rule or stipulation.

One of the main things that motivates war is land, and the people who live on it are often a core factor in it's inherent value. Human capital. Territory without the means to extract it's value is useless.

>implying civilians are not insurgents in plain clothes
Civilians inform the enemy of your location, and goals, they will sell you out because of extortion and bribery. The trick is to do counter-insurgent activities by paying people off and providing better security and governance.

The fact is, the civilian is being fought over, and punished by two rivaling entities.

>In war, the goal is just to kill the enemy, in order to stop the enemy from fighting entirely and quick, demolish opposition and have a long lasting stability in the conquered/dominated
stated

>The fact is, the civilian is being fought over, and punished by two rivaling entities.
This

The idea of OP being straight is a joke

>political leaders commit unnecessary cruel evil acts
>except to be respected on the political stage and have good relations with other world leaders

Link me you 2nd rate Aussie

Do you prefer to be killed by a bullet or burned to death or dismembered ?

They exist to make sure that war is not too cruel to the point of destroying both the victim and the killer. You just don't only respect those laws in hope that the ennemy will be as noble as you, you respect them to save your mind

And except if your enemy is truly part of a bloodthirsty mad group you aren't responsible to judge an enemy

Honestly, I'd be dead. From a personal perspective, I'd rather be dead than have my legs blown off or something of that nature.

So, you believe that the rules of war serve to protect the health/mindset of the aggressor as much as the defender? I've never been in war, but I can see how that may be the case.

I see the rules of war as a hindrance on the more "civilized" nation, if that makes sense. I wouldn't trust the enemy to adhere to the same rules, especially if they began to lose.

For instance, if world war broke out again, and my country was in a defensive position with a foreign invader, I would hope that my fellow citizenry would break the "rules of war" before surrendering the fight.

>They exist to make sure that war is not too cruel
Nope
They exist to avoid unnecessary confusion. If a president of one country decides to capture and rape a bunch of babies, the leaders of other countries will have a hard time dealing with that country. You can't make deals with them anymore and you can't have normal relations, and if you try to cooperate with that person, your political career will be over.
That is why the ''rules'' get put in place before. If you do any of these things and you broke any of these ''rules'' you know what you did, you know why foreign leaders are pulling out support and don't want to meet with you anymore.

What these kind of international ''laws'' are doing is taking common sense unspoken rules, and simply putting them in black and white so that no leader can firebomb some kinds and then go ''what did I do? how was I supposed to know I can't do that?''

There's to many humans in this world, and biosphere will not be able to sustain them.
What will you pick between executing whole towns of niggers, kikes and chinks to secure world for your descendants, or to be nice and have them perish in global ecological catastrophe?

Saw it.

The idea of war crime, and of etiquette in war, was formulated to regulate war between Christian nations. You should not wish that your Christian people fight until their absolute annihilation against a Christian aggressor.

If not, you're de-defining the core values of western civilization. Fascist and Communist factions overthrew this logic, and 60+ million people died in the ensuing throwdown

youtu.be/tXa9bj-jqA8

War crimes and laws governing warfare exist not for the sake of morality but to force participants to capitulate at some point. If you know that your enemy never takes prisoners, rapes and kills everyone who opposes them you will never surrender or give up.

That is illogical since both Stalin and Hitler agreed not to use poison gasses throughout the war despite not adhering to many of the other rules.

Based

>does not give a single fuck about arabs massacring, torturing, beheading each other
>Israel removes the mudslime menace
>WAAAAAAAAAAAA MY PET SANDNIGGERS GETTING BTFO FOR THE 1000th TIME!!!!

yeah, nah. kill all mudslimes plz. Israel does it fantastically well.

The guy was talking about Christianity and Christian nations, and your response is telling him he is illogical, and then proceeding to list two non-Christian nations.
The fuck am I reading?

Sure, I don't doubt that both powers were heavily influenced by their Christian backgrounds in select matters. But their confliction with western civilization came out of the rejection of Christian principles that had governed their land for over a thousand years.

He just said that Fascists and Communists did not abide by rules of war. I disproved him.

countries signed agreements for the rules of war and like in WWII we followed those rules unlike *llied scum who signed the same things but did not cared and bombed our civilians but at the end karma will always strike pic related our based german jews destroyed your entire country with one single act
never mess with german it will always come back to you ten times worse

Attached: 1542316378882.jpg (1024x587, 96K)

Just normal behavior I guess. Pic related.

Attached: 1502042695828.png (1063x644, 499K)

It is normal behavior, terrorism is a political tool to pacify a group against resisting a "stronger" opponent. Modern terrorism is not the same as how it was practiced historically.

this is from a chinese movie in 1941 and has nothi ng to do with reality
more chinese died fighting FOR japan than japanese died and when chinese did some bad things to their fellow chinese it does not mean that it was the japanese fault
same with our SS divisions when they did some barbaric things does not mean that it was the germans doing it

Attached: World-War-II-military-deaths-theater-year-by-Sergey-Mavrody.png (1452x1318, 179K)

ITT: LARPing psychopaths

nice shoop faggot

Geneva Convention is a European/Civilized guideline to waging war. Its also a compass for escalation.

War Crimes are a meme.

Attached: FSJ8978390iyogsgsg3782179681_7f21e473bd_z.jpg (499x500, 153K)

This.
"War crime" is like "wet water"
I

This. At least the Russians still understand the big picture.

how many babies died in hiroshima, nagasaki, tokyo?