What's Jow Forums stance on war crimes and war criminals? Reprehensible and deserving of death? Commanders/Soldiers...

I'd say what passes as a "war crime" is grossly overblown. Sure if you're brutally torturing prisoners then that's one thing, but executing soldiers on the battlefield? Hardly a criminal offense. Armies fight, one side loses, if you line the rest of the losers up and shoot them it's not particularly good, but not a crime in my opinion. Collective punishment? Someone knows who bombed this convoy... who was it? No one knows, well let's take 10 men and shoot them. Again, not particularly savory, but these dudes are aiding the enemy. Soldiers aren't there to be police. They're a hammer. You shouldn't penalize them for hammering things. Use the right tools for the job.

Attached: IMG2600201534651201217.jpg (1399x1460, 277K)

Dynamiting just sounds so much more dastardly though.

Disguising yourself as the enemy isn't too bad, My Lai was horrific. It depends on the crime.

>war criminals?
no such thing in war. when you're fighting someone, kill them all.
also, remove kebab!

Attached: 1546775132633.jpg (631x713, 65K)

>some "one"
>proceeds to execute many many men of false pretences
>Oy Vey! Stop investigating
You know why it's different than capital punishment

no such thing as a war crime

You'd be the first to cry and squeal the moment an enemy decides that he's going to have a little "fun" with you after you've surrendered.
>inb4 "I wouldn't surrender! I'd f-fight to the d-death!"

When you sign agreements with people, there are in principle.

That may have made sense when civilized nations were fighting one another, war was merely a temporary state of lapsed negotiations, and fighting was a somewhat organized affair in which soldiers would go out to some field and kill each other with little to no danger to civilians.

IMO, WWII changed all that. Germany and Japan decided that all-out war was fine and dandy, and everyone who had air power used it to bomb the shit out of civilian and military targets alike, considering that civilians were part of the war effort themselves - either as potential soldiers that could be drafted at a moment's notice or be made to support the war effort in other ways (working in an ammunition factory, producing food, etc). The allied forces had to prove that they were willing to kill their enemy down to the last man to end the war.

Today, the war crime laws and rules of engagement make even less sense because we aren't even fighting nation-states anymore, but guerilla forces that blend in with civilians. There's basically no way to prove that your local Achmed or Muhammad is working for the enemy unless you catch him red-handed directly on the battlefield firing at you. All they have to do is wait it out until we leave the area. This is why we will never win against guerilla warfare under current rules.

How dastardly?

Attached: Dynamite POWs.png (810x680, 29K)

There are so many grey areas, it’s difficult for me to avoid taking an autistic “might makes right” position. I guess I can sympathize with all punished parties while also saying, “what are u gonna do? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯“. We’re all human I guess. Lackluster answer, I know.

I didn't even know they made Irma Grese into an anime girl

But in reality user, regardless of rank and file, war criminals have to be punished, look at Germany where 90 plus grandmas and grandpa's are getting life sentences for just being camp guards

Also why not show the kids the photo to see if onee-chan should be punished desu

Define "crime"
What if you are't working with NATO and the UN?
Too many unanswered questions Opie...

Attached: 1518229614106.png (656x451, 394K)

I like to think that I'd behave more or less like those guys in WWI in They Shall Not Grow Old.
Like I'll wave on an enemy grunt who's screaming that they surrender, clearly unarmed with their hands high up in the air, obviously scared out of their mind.
But if they've been in a static, well protected position that's been actively giving us exceptional hell for the past however long the fight has been going on and killing many members of my platoon, and they surrender as soon as we get the better of them... They're getting shot.

>be my girlfriend
That's objectively a harsher punishment though.

Why is following orders not considered a valid defense? I've never really understood that. If the alternative is to say no and get shot or get reassigned somewhere you're fully expected to die then how is that not a valid point, it's not like you had an actual choice.

only the loosing side commits war crimes
just following orders
all's fair in love and war
you started it
treat others as they would treat you
do unto others before they do unto you
Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces
Tu quoque ?
Cui bono ?

the ends justify the means
might makes right
the weak should fear the strong
the strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must
what is best in life ? (To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.)

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind
in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
if you seek revenge first dig two graves
holding onto anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die
if you kill your enemies they win

>tldr none of this matters
>its all narrative agenda and rhetoric
>anything can be justified

It's considered a valid defense.
Nuremberg was just a show for public consumption i.e. kangaroo court to appease the people, and people who say it's not valid have never faced any adversity in their lives.
Not to mention that people usually write it off as invalid just to "win" an argument. "Hurr durr That's what the Nazi's said! And Nazi = bad therefore Nazi defense = bad defense! Hurr durr!"

>Why is following orders not considered a valid defense?

It is, but that would seriously undermine any wartime conduct agreements so they prosecute them any way. Essentially if it was allowed very few people would actually be found culpable, they want to apply legal pressure throughout the chain of command and not just the very top.

The 'following orders' defense only applies to grunts. NCOs and Officers get fucked hard

Thus why I'm still alone- they always choose the firing squad instead.

there are ways not to follow orders
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson_Jr.#My_Lai_massacre_intervention
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Colburn#The_Massacre
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Andreotta#The_massacre

you just have to be ready to fight a certain % of your own forces
youtube.com/watch?v=1NwnnLnvQYA&feature=youtu.be&t=2818

they're my favorite part of every war.

Anybody who says dumb shit like 'in the heat of it all, you're not going to know' are the kind of people you don't want to invite into your house/barracks, and I've met some of them.

The kind of shit that qualifies as a 'war crime' are the kind of things nobody with an ounce of moral fibre would consider in the first place. The kind of shit where, if your DIVO or old man asked you to do it, you'd think it was an integrity test.

There are examples of people turning their guns around in the face of bullshit orders, so saying it's a modern idea is moot as well.

Sam Browne belt, suit jacket and diamond rank insignia on shoulder straps instead of SS collar tabs- looks like a Bong uniform. Must have suppressed a native revolt. I suspect too many people here would approve of that.

Attached: Vereshchagin-Blowing_from_Guns_in_British_India.jpg (600x420, 47K)

The targeting of civilians happened in WWI as well, zeplins over London, u-boats raiding shipping, all the shit that happened in ocupied Belgium and so on. I'd guess that this happened earlier as well. And disgarding our current rules of engagement could have huge consequences the next time a war between two nations who fight in what we might call traditional war, with definite soldiers fighting definite soldiers, I mean your country doesn't think that there should be any form of decency shown towards surrendered combattants so you won't have a problem with us using you for bayonet practice.

>too many
Not enough many.

The definition of "war crime" is as fluid as the definition of "pedophile", these days. Define your terms.

It [is] more beneficial, that many guilty persons should escape unpunished, than one innocent person should suffer. The reason is, because it is of more importance to the community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world, that all of them cannot be punished; and many times they happen in such a manner, that it is not of much consequence to the public, whether they are punished or not. But when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security. And if such a sentiment as this should take place in the mind of the subject, there would be an end to all security whatsoever.
— John Adams

every side in every war in history commit war crime
if you don't want to be shot for it try not to be on the loosing side

Attached: 1557943047626.jpg (1600x1006, 698K)

Stop derailing threads loser

>inb4ing your own post
Don't be a faggot, user. You have no way to know how anybody but yourself would react in that kind of situation. You are projecting your insecurities onto others, because you believe you yourself would do such.

>it's not like you had an actual choice
This is a dangerous position to take, for it inherently is an admission that you have surrendered your own agency. once you have done that, you're nothing but a tool to be used by anyone unscrupulous enough to use you.

An army buddy told me it's not a war crime if you close your eyes. So just do that if you want to be on the safe side user.

>that pic
too many feels.
anime girls are not for sadness and hurting

Watch out guys, tough anime poster is talking.

It obviously depends in how much you need to follow that order. In vietnam, a american that refused to kill civilians wouldn't get killed by a superiors. A german in ww2 though...

I remember reading about some guy that used to be in the SS in the war. He'd hid it for years, the guy had grandkids by the time they found out. He was a white haired old man. IIRC they executed him.
I'm just saying, I wouldn't pull the trigger on someone trying to escape their demons.

Wtf do you mean by trying to escape their demons. He volunteered to do it because he wanted to.

War crimes are only war crimes if you lose the conflict.

SS did nothing wrong

I do not know what is the legal concept of what a "war crime" is for the international treaties that deal with the matter

But I imagine something like that
>Your country is going to war
>Kill enemies because is war
>If your country loses the war, your being executed or imprisoned for life because you are a "criminal" of war
>iIf your country wins the war your being decorated with medals because you are a war "hero"

Attached: 1553570262191.jpg (732x836, 231K)

so why would anyone let themselves be photographed like this

war crime isnt real

Retarded edgelords with no knowledge if history

It comes off as revenge to me. Im actually disturbed by the implications of just following orders as a defense. Imagine being in the German army and being told to execute POWs by your superior and you know disobeying said order could mean the end of your life and wouldnt save the people you were told to kill either. But if you do it and later are tried your fucked. A really shitty damned if you do damned if ya dont. Hey guess thats the price you pay for being living in a dictatorial regime.

Same way a lot of Nazis let themselves be incriminated easily; they were sure they were going to win.

The pics were fakes that were created as post war propaganda user

>with little to no danger to civilians.
Many of our current laws of war are centuries old, because targeting civilians is a centuries old practice. Read up on the shit that Edward II and his opponents did in the name of war, in the 14th century. They would slaughter whole villages of peasants, because that was the quickest way of bankrupting the other side. The ones that didn’t get killed would get rounded up and driven onto the lands of whichever noble happened to be visiting that day, because peasants are valuable war material.

This meme that total war didn’t exist before WW2 is bullshit. We have laws of war because total warfare has been a thing for millenia. There’s an assload of biblical references, for that matter. If anything, it’s only been in the last couple of centuries that the idea of civil populations being off limits has gained any traction.

I find your ideal that there is international law about conduct of war to be laughably naive.

Edgy 16 year olds all over this thread

It's Jow Forums.

Total war was just called war before the 1800s. Other user is right, the reason civilised war came about and men met "on the field of battle" was literally to keep civilians out of the line because prior to that it was a free for all. Look at the mongols, you either bested them or lost in every imaginable way possible. Same with Greeks,Roman's, etc. WWI and II was a return to the natural state of war, where you attacked an enemies logistics and support (I.E his civilization itself)

>Losing the argument? Feelings hurt?
>Shout EDGY to silence your opponent and win the argument!

that black guy got fucked up. its so strange i almost want to feel bad for him but i cant.

War crimes only apply to the losers of a war
Winners of the war can write up any fake war crimes they want to punish their enemies

why not?

before the timestamp he talked about scalping people and cutting out their tongues. what difference is there between him and the NVA/VC other than he was born in the US

and virgins too

Attached: sad girl.png (555x636, 161K)

In the case of OP's picture, look the other way.
>>Nurturing mother capable of going full ruthless shewolf during war
If anything I want her to procreate because she's clearly a capable asset who should pass her genes on.

underrated posts

This. Enough time goes by and it's no longer reasonable to execute someone for what they did years ago

>IMO, WWII changed all that
You're just dead wrong. It was considerably earlier than that. I love Guglielmo Ferrero's quote on it circa 1933
>Restricted warfare was one of the loftiest achievements of the eighteenth century. It belongs to a class of hot-house plants which can only thrive in a truly aristocratic and qualitative civilization. We are no longer capable of it. It is one of the many fine things we have lost as a result of the French Revolution.

I’d commit some war crimes on her that’s for sure

Thanks to NATO and UN, we don't really have a definition of war crime, since it is loosely applied to factions that oppose them and is almost never applied to factions that they support, making term itself rather pointless.

Attached: 48405495_1544482848988116_3812646712086888448_n.png (490x767, 305K)

It implies that being given an order abrogates your own free will, which it in reality does not. An order does not physically compel you to obey it, you still have to make your own internal conscious decision to obey it unless you were on drugs or psychologically fucked with to become an automaton. This means that while an individual's superiors are more culpable than they are for devising the order, the individual is still responsible for the commission of the order. If you are given an order you know is morally abominable but you decide to carry it out any way you are still committing an abominable act, the fact that you'd suffer consequences if you refuse is not a sufficient justification.

I'm from Northern Ireland, one of the enduring legacy issues of the conflict are security forces who were involved in extra judicial killings that were never prosecuted or even investigated. When paramiliarities were prosecuted to the full extent of the law and british soldiers were essentially given a slap on the hand for killing multiple civilians for no acceptable reason then it breeds a lot of resentment and anger that fostered the conflict.

My local UDR commander (part time very sectarian protestant force) was implicated in the murder of a catholic politician in the early seventies, they found his car and a shitload of evidence by the lake where his body had been dumped, it was known his unit was operating in that area the night the victim was killed. Despite that, all it took for him to get off was one local policeman to give him an alibi, the car and all the evidence mysteriously disappeared from police archive and the case was buried like so many others involving the state. About 15 years ago, one of his units soldiers broke down in a bar one night and admitted they commited the murder in front of multiple witnesses, this was reported to the police. The man died about a year after that but he was never once questioned about it. The UDR man was also a cofounder of the DUP and sat as a representative in the NI regional assembly so that also would have played a role in not investigating his involvement but the point is, only in NI would this happen, it wouldn't happen in any other part of the UK. There is nothing really unique about that story, but it adds to the bitterness felt among a divided society around these kind of crimes. Agents of the state who murdered civvies are responsible for much of the ongoing political tensions

War crimes only exists for the losers.

Looks more like a two-faced bitch

Are you trolling, or legitimately stupid? Post more, so I can nail it down.

There are no such things as a warcrime, only winner's justice exist. Warcrime is used NATO and the UN to give themselves good conscience nothing more.

I'd go as far as to say no one truly knows how they'll react in a situation until it actually happens. People are great at lying to themselves

>If you are given an order you know is morally abominable but you decide to carry it out any way you are still committing an abominable act, the fact that you'd suffer consequences if you refuse is not a sufficient justification.
Idk about other Western militaries, in the US we’re instructed in what constitutes an illegal order. Obeying an illegal order is a criminal act. Of course, if you refuse an illegal order you had better be rock hard certain that it’s illegal. Otherwise, you’ll get fucked with a beach umbrella at court martial.

War crimes are codified, and fairly precisely defined for a reason. Immoral acts are not necessarily illegal acts. Not all illegal actions are considered immoral by all people. So, we have laws of war.

>>you have to be rock certain that it's illegal
>you have to memorize the book cover to cover or you might get fucked over because of a grey area order you weren't sure about
Oof

C'mon man, that's cruel and unusual punishment.

This is a good post. I have nothing to really add. Like me walking into a campfire and listening in on two guys chop it up. Like a comfy voyeur.

I'm American, war crimes are a fucking meme and there's a bunch of tar covered corpses with rotten feathers stuck in then that say you're wrong if you think otherwise

It’s not like the California Vehicle Code. War crime stuff is pretty basic.
>are they wearing enemy uniforms? If yes, light them up.
>do they surrender, in a clear and unmistakeable manner? If yes, take them into custody. You’re now responsible for their well being.

If they’re not in uniform, and shooting at you, they’re illegal combatants. Summary execution is legal. So is group punishment, as long as it’s proportional. You can’t burn a village on the other side of the country because you took fire from a hamlet. Calling an airstrike on the hamlet is legal, within time restraints. You have to be reasonably confident the shooters are still in the ville. Killing random civilians to punish the other side is a no no. Unless you catch them actively engaging in or providing support for hostile acts.

Ok, scenario time: little kid runs up to your patrol, LT tells you to shoot him = war crime if you do. You and LT get fucked at court martial. But, if the little kid runs up with a grenade, and you shoot him, you’re clear. Even though it was a used smoke, and the kid was just trying to give it to you because he thought you’d lost it.

See how that works?

You mean like the poor Red Army simply following the orders of Zhukov, Beria and Stalin to mass rape everything in sight age 9-90, including camp survivors? I guess they're heroes, we should build them statues.

Nobody said the vodka niggers were human

not that guy but i've heard that a lot from iraq vets, shoot first and if asked later, "he looked like he had a grenade/AK in his hands"

I don't know if it is true or not, but I heard from some of the guys who went to Afghanistan that on their days off they would wander the local markets to look for neat things to ship back home for relatives to sell. They would find some cheap pistols too and hide them in their gear to plant on people they killed that turned out to be unarmed. I hope this shit is just bantz but I wouldn't be surprised from a couple of the guys who said it.

youtu.be/7cufG2Dlxvk

Based

I've pondered that for a while too, there's a movie about Adolf Eichmann's trial on Netflix. I didn't know much about the guy, but looking him up I guess he was one of the higher up guys in charge of the Final Solution/killing jews and whatnot. But he did use that as a defense at his trial, saying basically "i was following orders, i would have been killed if i refused Hitler, and someone would simply take my place if I refused, and they would have died anyway." I don't know if he specifically volunteered for the job, but say you're promoted into it, and you cant say no, can it still be 100% your fault for what they tell you to do, if the defiance of that order is death?

1940s version of the dab

Yes
It's called say yes and then fuck off into the sunset when their back is turned
This is the 40s, security cameras and tracking chips aren't a thing, he could be clear out of germany and on a fishing boat by the time they realize he's gone

It often was more than "Do it or we kill you". The threat extended to their family. While not necessarily death, your family would at the very least be "under investigation" by the SS if you did anything that they saw as betrayal. If you betrayed them than maybe your wife is also a traitor, or your kids, or siblings, your parents.
Authoritarian regimes are a fucking nightmare.

At that point, it's just CYA. Shitty, but war is pretty shitty.

More like a dream come true. You think that everyone wants to be a new San Fransisco, overrun by homeless and human feces, serious crimes, AIDS, degeneracy, below replacement level fertility, slow decay and death? No, we want a different path! Maybe if you don't support an end to the madness then you and everyone responsible for raising you is beneath contempt, maybe you should be quarantined for your own health, and re-educated to become a good citizen. It worked to civilize countless Savages. Nothing has changed so much in human nature in the last few hundred years that we can't continue to bring civilization, beauty, and grace to people not worthy it, against their will or no.

That's exactly the mindset they use to spread urban blight and get you thrown in prison for saying a mean word on the internet. You are wrong and they are right, and because you oppose them, you're an anti-social (in this case meaning anti-society-as-it-should-be) Nazi.

And then, one day, for no reason of all, X was voted into power

No, it's because of people having colonial mindsets as they try to spread their victimhood culture where everyone is oppressed except whoever they're mercilessly persecuting for wrongthink this week.