Why are soliders prevented from killing civ's? They are the people of the enemy nation...

Why are soliders prevented from killing civ's? They are the people of the enemy nation, therefore their elimination should not be a crime. The purpose of warfare is to win for your countrymen, not be confused by a target.

Attached: IMG_0990.png (752x1080, 1024K)

t. teenager

r u a fucking faggot

Because in the 1890s we had this thing called the Hague convention that set rules for war between civilized European powers. One of these rules was you couldn't kill each others civilians. In the time since we've decided that these rules should extend to all peoples and not just Europeans. Thus we fight enemies by a different set of rules than they do and struggle as a result.

because a lot of people don't have the ability to choose where they live, or what doctrines they are forced to follow. Why should they have to suffer if they have never done something wrong?

Rules of Engagement primarily, but also the fact that civies have generally no say in a war. When US fights a war, they (officially speaking) fight to eliminate threats. Civies for the most part are not threats. There is no benefit to anyone to kill random civies, only bad blood down the road.

This is what separates Western nations from the beasts of Africa or the goatfuckers of the Middle East. They do not seek to terrorize the populace, at least not in the sense of purposely killing civilians. Mistaking them for wrong targets is a different story.

Yeah, and as in case with any law, laws of war work only if there are strong observers and powerful MPs

Because first world whites don't have the heart for it

Or enough rockets to remind them why they need to follow said laws. Even potentially false flag "war crimes" get punished if big daddy USA doesn't like it.

>The purpose of warfare is to win for your countrymen, not be confused by a target.

War is won by crippling your enemy's ability to fight you and driving the populace in an occupied area to fight against you often conflicts with that goal.

White people managed to tell themselves that there can be rules in war.

Why did Jow Forums change after the election?

So in short...

No gun/weapon = Civy, no shooty
Picks up gun/weapon = Non Civy, acceptable target, eliminate?

But the populace of a occupied area are the citizens of the nation/area against you, thus possible future combatants.

Agreed. This is why Hague convention rules have broken down in every European war from WWI forward. That's a big part of why they had the follow up Geneva convention.

You know one of I think ghengis Khan's advsiors got like half a country killinfor arguing to tax the people left over after war instead of killing them. Ask your self are you smarter than the guy that ghngis Khan gave half a kingdom too?

>Christ I hate summer. Think before you post people.

Because in a war, its the government that declares the war, not the people. The people often cannot sway such decisions, and are the ones that suffer for it.

If an military force entered a town in the enemy's territory and the civilian population surrendered properly and did not put up a resistance, why shoot them? Sure they are the people of the enemy nation, but by shooting them you give the enemy nation a greater reason to destroy you, and it would make capturing major locations harder as the civilian population would gladly help their military.

because youre asking a stupid question

Eliminating all males and raping all females entirely eliminates the potential for insurgency.

It is and has been the most effective method of total victory throughout human history.

Didn't you just get BTFO in the chemical weapons thread? or was that someone else?

(You)

Generally, yes.

Armed civilians is a weird one to deal with, but if they are shooting at you, you can shoot back.

Children

But at which point they become enemy combatants. Why is it the army's that completely massacred their enemy's civ's never delt with these problems?

Your mentality is why we have endless wars.


Me: KILL ALL OF THEM
>War over

Next.fucking.thread

this

it was probably him, but there's 257 just like him coming right up
why do this white guilt-feeling faggots always think we can make things better by making things worse

>endless wars
go watch videos of soldiers just spraying bullets at an enemy who is 650m away and hitting exactly nobody.
Go look at pictures of jarheads trying to sleep laying on duffels.

that's the reality of war. It's actually just lame

That's easier said then done. People love to form insurgencies. And I'm sure they could recruit other enemies of your country to come off you and give your lady a little somethen somethen in return. Do you really want to start a race to the bottom for being the most depraved? Not for long you don't.

>thus possible future combatants
And actively being hostile against them makes them even more likely to fight you later, and is another can of worms in international diplomacy when other nations know about it, especially the allies of the nation you are fighting, and nations that you already have some political tensions with.

They aren't, it's a case by case basis thing that we happen to disallow in all cases.

We also kill the fuck out of civilians all the time. We may not be aiming for them but you're an idiot if you think we don't drone strike bad guys just cause he's in a crowd when we caught up with him.

>acting like arabians wouldn't haplessly slaughter whites if they were in a position to
>acting like the chinese wouldn't haplessly slaughter whites if they were in a position to
>acting like africans dont specifically target harmless whites because they are demons

Conventions are a product of civilization. There is no civilization outside of white nations.

Attached: liberals and south africa.jpg (480x566, 55K)

>I have no idea what the history of warfare looks like

What are you going to do when all the men are dead in a given region, eh? move your own people in to occupy the capital (in an economic sense, the stuff that made it possible to fight you in the first place)? What's going to happen to all those rape babies that grow up listening to how awful you were?
The closest we have ever come to fighting a textbook total war was WWII. Even then, we adhered to Clausewitz's principles.
Read a fucking book. It's summer, you have a lot of free time now.

>thus possible future combatants.
>POSSIBLE

More likely than not if given the opportunity to their life somewhat closely to what they had before you showed up, thats what they will continue to do unless they are provoked.

>But at which point they become enemy combatants
Simple
Civies that help the military(say, arms manufacturing plant): Usually part of collateral damage when you airstrike the factories. Still, if they surrender to you, you don't shoot them.
Civies that shoots you: Valid target, self defence rules applies
Civies that don't help the military or shoot you and are more busy running to shelters: No go, do not engage

>haplessly
lol tell me what you think that even means

>arabians
can't really into violence, they're clansmen at heart who don't care what's happening in the next village
as long as they come home looking brave
> chinese
chinese people are hypernationals, but they sucka at war. even a minor skirmish is going to kill more chinese than anything else
> africans
you're describing a clear case of human life being too cheap and "one of these things is not like the other"

none of your examples indicate the validity of the race war you seek or justify escalation of the weapons used in conflict.
Especially since we're only fighting one of those groups

wtf kind of question is this? it's like asking "why is it illegal to run red light at 5am with no camera's or people's around"?

>Why is it the army's that completely massacred their enemy's civ's never delt with these problems?

because the armies that behaved like that weren't around to deal with the problems that followed. Go ahead and tell me that the Ilkhanate wasn't a clusterfuck of depopulated areas along the silk road and what later became Iraq and Iran.

>why are war crimes bad?

no, it's worse than that.
that's an example that a normal person might encounter. Even OP might get there in a year or two

the "why don't nations do a lot of warcrimes" question is stupid because OP don't even vote.
If he was actually rose to a position of authority, he'd learn something on the way up.
By the time he got there, he'd understand why all the grownups made all those choices.
He'd make the same choices

But since he's a worthless teenager who is still at least 36 months away from growing a brain, and since he's never even been in a fistfight, he's going to continue posting stupid threads

And said rule was promptly thrown into the blender the moment WWI hit and has never been enforced since.
It's a general guideline OP, no major war actually follows the "no kill civilian rule" if it means ending the war faster, but if you are killing civs today than there's a real fucking problem on your end as the groups we're fighting aren't supposed to HAVE civilians in their ranks. You're not killing ISIS's civilians, you're killing some shithole down the street that we're not even at war withs' civs.

>KILL ALL OF THEM
And then you give other nations a reason to fuck you up for it, if not via war, via trade sanctions and shit.

Its not a matter of more wars in future, but rather the post-war economical and political shitstorm, you're giving the bystanders of the war more ammunition to fuck you up with.
>You did this much war crimes so we're gonna put trade sanctions on you so you can't fucking recover from the war unless you pay for those war crimes

but people in positions of authority have not made those decisions since for a very long time. they go half way there, but don't factor the human cost (or fiscal hehrehueeuhrueh) into victory.

they only go as far enough as to satisfy stakeholders. this is probably a good thing if you accept this as a predicate for the situation

>since for a very long time
rewrite your post for me i'm struggling.
really do want to help

Even if we're just talking about the war itself and not the post-war shitstorm around warcrimes, the fact that you will need to spend resources to shoot helpless civilians is relevant.
Logistics is a large part of war, do you really want to waste ammunition and manpower just to shoot civies when you can use them to shoot enemy soldiers? You can only carry so much ammo for a military force of a given size, and you may not be able to get resupplied if your resupply route is fucked or your resupply transports are attacked. Is it really a good investment?

Attached: 1392482523739.jpg (917x720, 237K)

>There is no civilization outside of white nations.
Isn't china the longest continuous civilization on earth or something

They aren't.

No one gives a fuck unless it's some 3rd world despot doing it while also not earning money for his Jewish masters or obeying his handlers.

The west was killed by WW2 and we don't want to see more slaughter ever again unless it's perfectly morally just, like killing a Nazi troop or some faggotry.

>>Jow Forums

Are you the same one that made the Chemical Weapons thread?

Look, here's the thing. On the basest level, waring nations do not actively target each other's civilians because then THEIR civilians would be targeted. The Idea, mainly is that if belligerents refrain from certain tactics or weapons that neither side will see any reason to bring them to the fight in the first place.

>falling for this

Attached: b8.jpg (800x600, 27K)

The only justifiable reason to not murder enemy civilians is if they are a net drain of resources when alive - ideally you should have weapons that will cripple them en masse. Cluster bombs that look like toys is a good start.

Daily reminder that Curtis Lemay did nothing wrong. There are no innocent civilians in war anymore.

Depends. The nuke sure the fuck shut the Japanese up rather quickly, didn't it?

War seems to complicated to fight anymore. What ever happened to true Us vs. Them?

Ah, this is why then their will never be a nuclear war...because really thats all they are good for.

Good luck fairing well with any other country in the world when you commit genocide

Real life is never black and white like that.

You must be over 18 to post here, edgelord.

>That's a big part of why they had the follow up Geneva convention.

Which addresses things like treatment of captured enemy combatants, and what weapons are off limits.

Average soldier has no say either, why dont world leaders just fight to death in a cage match?

>War over

Wrong. It’s just moved into the occupation phase, complete with power vacuums, suicide attacks, and never-ending unpleasantry. Very much like what’s been happening in Palestine since 1948.

>because a lot of people don't have the ability to choose where they live

they do now, migration is a human right, which a lot of snobs have trouble accepting

Because you open up yourself to the exact same retaliation and few countries are ready for this. See the bombing of Germany after the one of England.

Besides, soldiers don't actively try to kill civilians, they still end up killing quite a few of them, even in modern war. There's never ending "oops" bombing from the USA in the middle-east ("oooh this was a wedding, well sucks to be you...").

No. It may be the region that’s had the longest string of civilizations, or some shit like that, but it’s not the longest running continuous civilization. I think Iceland may be the longest running civilization, starting in the 9th century.

>Cluster bombs that look like toys is a good start.

Because that helped the Soviets to their overwhelming win in Afghanistan, right?

Precisely. He who launches first has already lost.

The last thing you want is a failed state and/or massive resentment in the population.

That's how you get another war a couple of decades later.

We needed to limit ourselves to make it fairer on the rest the world, keeps things interesting.

>kill civilians
>breed resentment
>now you have insurgents

hearts and minds you dumb fuck

>kill civilians
>civilians get made and become insurgents
>continue the killing since they are now lawful combatants

Aww shit I think we just solved the puzzle.

Lolno. And most definetly people already living there have a right to tell you to fuck off.

As should you, reddit is that way.

You didn't solve shit, and this is the reasob afghanistan is as it is. Only way to unfuck that mess is to literally kill everyone or gtfo and hope they don't find some more planes.

>>/reddit/

Attached: IMG_8076.png (1058x503, 289K)

Don't you understand, He, OP and everyone who agrees with them WANT to kill everyone. They dont see reason when you point out that murdering an entire population is wrong because you went to war with their government.

*Is wrong just because you went to war with their government

This
>continue killing
>more resistance
>keep killing
>entire country against you
>keep killing
>faction is now against you
>keep killing
>coalition is formed
>ass kicked back to your capital
>keep killing
>imagine the battle of Berlin if 90% of the German army mutinied and the people fought against the government
You created a few hundred problems

Because you can't control a dead person. If you leave them alive, you can get them to go to work to get taxes for you

that plan only really works if you turn the entire country and every country that may ally with it into a radioactive wasteland, which will result in something commonly reffered to as "bad PR"

Systemic genocide is far more practical than changing hearts and minds, from a tribal warfare point of view. And we are moving back to the traditional kind of war based on ethnic and racial identities.

So you let the Jews took over all the institutions just to give them a chance? How confident of you.

That's assuming the disparity in power wasn't so extreme that you can defeat or destroy the rest of the world combined.

Just kill all of the enemy's civilians except for the top tier attractive women to be gifted to your men as concubines. This is how warfare and conquest is meant to be waged.

Are you a genuine retard OP?

Attached: 1487147710845.jpg (214x250, 14K)

Again, it's a different matter in the ME entirely because the people dying there aren't the civilians of an enemy nation, they're just people that happen to live in close proximity to the terrorists the US are after. It's the same situation if the people accidentally blown up by the US were uniformed Iraqis, which is to say they are collateral damage in the name of freedom and thus not covered under the conventions, which don't have anything for "accidentally killed non-belligerents".

Vietnam is why.

It's convenient then that many wars that the US is pretending to wage are against ideas or artefacts ("drugs", "terrorism", "evil") and not against nations.
Non-combattants are never of an enemy nation is the war isn't fought against nations...

And then the US still gives no shit to the civilian that "happen to live n close proximity" to their targets.

My point overall is that armies have always and still targets civilians, either directly or by knowing that they'll get caught in the blast, but they don't care. Especially since the power of retaliation is nihil.
I bet that if nations of the middle-east could infiltrate the mainland and conduct terrorists attacks in the US against their civilians, it wouldn't be the same (well of course it wouldn't).
The US never cared about enemy civilians because their own are never at risk in their war.

>Why are soliders prevented from killing civ's? They are the people of the enemy nation, therefore their elimination should not be a crime.
Believe it or not, it's a perfectly pragmatic stance. The vast majority of wars are not cut and dry racewars of annihilation. If you're just fighting over some borderlands or some trade rights you don't want to galvanize resistance by making it about killing every last enemy person. If it's just about some turf somewhere far away people are less likely to want to fight to the last man than when it's about the their survival and that of everybody they know and love.

There is also the fact that if you aggressively expand and annihilate nations around you, everybody else will wonder if they're next and thus be more likely to gang up on you.
>t. moralizing retards with no understanding of politics or strategy

Attached: 1512140567459.jpg (645x729, 48K)

>I bet that if nations of the middle-east could infiltrate the mainland and conduct terrorists attacks in the US against their civilians
That was sort of what started this conflict in the first place.

>Non-combattants are never of an enemy nation if the war isn't fought against nations...
Congratulations, you figured out the basics of evading the conventions without being an edgelord like OP. The thing is though, the US and post-USSR Russia never intentionally aim at civilians during their campaigns and when they do kill them it tends to mess with the soldiers' heads. They're genuine accidents.

>Why aren't soldiers allowed to turn a minor, scattered enemy threat into one with endless numbers that will start organizing?

Don't you have a containment board to stay in?

Daily reminder: Report Jow Forums posters until they fuck off back to their containment board.

If you hate them so much stop giving them attention and yous.

The idea is that between civilised countries, neither one wants to have it's civilians killed. So if neither side kills them than neither side has a reason to kill the other side's.

>could win the war cheaply and cleanly in a few weeks
>instead spend generations in a brutal war of attrition as the enemy fights to the last man
Which sounds better to you?

Attached: 30 years war hanging tree.jpg (754x500, 72K)

>waah stop mentioning real things

No gun=no shoot
Gun and an armband or uniform=lawful enemy combatant, shoot in accordance with international law
Gun and no armband=unlawful combatant, shoot however you think you can sell to the media

With modern technology and sufficient advantage in power you can kill everybody in a nation fairly quickly. Much more quickly and cheaply than occupying it and running a police action, in fact. The problem is what consequences you might face from third parties, your own citizens and what you were fighting the war for to begin with.

>30 years war
>war of annihilation
lmao

It was a dynastic conflict between princes with armies of mercenaries, not even remotely what OP is describing

Us vs Them only works when "Them" consists of "those assholes in the next valley over", and the guys in the valley after that don't even know you. Every "Them" on earth is aware of everybody else now. There are no isolated conflicts.

Simply put, you're just describing "total war." Those usually end or start in genocides and precede additional wars of retribution or occupation. It's a threshold most people avoid because it comes with reciprocity.

Examples: the World Wars, Golden Horde campaigns, US Civil War after Sherman got loosed on the South.

You know one of the bigger aspects of insurgencies are the people that come from outside the war zone to fight right

>Your mentality is why we have endless wars
No, we have those because it's beneficial to the powers that be. We played team deathmatch in Vietnam and that was a long war despite being a blowout